EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)

Submitted to: Eur. Phys. J. C CERN-EP-2021-234

3rd December 2021
arXiv:2112.01302v1 [hep-ex] 2 Dec 2021

Search for flavour-changing neutral-current

√ of a top quark and a gluon in 𝒑 𝒑
interactions
collisions at 𝒔 = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

The ATLAS Collaboration

A search is presented for the production of a single top quark via left-handed flavour-changing
neutral-current (FCNC) interactions of a top quark, a gluon and an up or charm quark.
Two production processes are considered: 𝑢 + 𝑔 → 𝑡 and 𝑐 + 𝑔 → 𝑡. The analysis is
based on proton–proton collision data taken at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV with
the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The data set corresponds to an integrated luminosity of
139 fb−1 . Events with exactly one electron or muon, exactly one 𝑏-tagged jet and missing
transverse momentum are selected, resembling the decay products of a singly produced top
quark. Neural networks based on kinematic variables differentiate between events from
the two signal processes and events from background processes. The measured data are
consistent with the background-only hypothesis, and limits are set on the production cross-
sections of the signal processes: 𝜎(𝑢 + 𝑔 → 𝑡) × B (𝑡 → 𝑊 𝑏) × B (𝑊 → ℓ𝜈) < 3.0 pb and
𝜎(𝑐 + 𝑔 → 𝑡) × B (𝑡 → 𝑊 𝑏) × B (𝑊 → ℓ𝜈) < 4.7 pb at the 95% confidence level, with
B (𝑊 → ℓ𝜈) = 0.325 being the sum of branching ratios of all three leptonic decay modes of
the 𝑊 boson. Based on the framework of an effective field theory, the cross-section limits are
translated into limits on the strengths of the 𝑡𝑢𝑔 and 𝑡𝑐𝑔 couplings occurring in the theory:
𝑢𝑡 |/Λ2 < 0.057 TeV−2 and |𝐶 𝑐𝑡 |/Λ2 < 0.14 TeV−2 . These bounds correspond to limits on
|𝐶𝑢𝐺 𝑢𝐺
the branching ratios of FCNC-induced top-quark decays: B (𝑡 → 𝑢 + 𝑔) < 0.61 × 10−4 and
B (𝑡 → 𝑐 + 𝑔) < 3.7 × 10−4 .

© 2021 CERN for the benefit of the ATLAS Collaboration.

Reproduction of this article or parts of it is allowed as specified in the CC-BY-4.0 license.
Contents

1 Introduction 2

2 The ATLAS detector 4

3 Samples of data and simulated events 5

3.1 Samples of simulated events from the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 and 𝑐𝑔𝑡 FCNC processes 5
3.2 Simulation of 𝑡 𝑡¯ and SM single-top-quark production 6
3.3 Simulation of 𝑊+jets and 𝑍+jets production 7
3.4 Simulation of diboson and multijet production 7

4 Object reconstruction and event selection 8

4.1 Object definitions 8
4.2 Basic event selection 9
4.3 Definition of signal and validation regions 10

5 Estimation of the multijet background 11

6 Neural networks separating signal and background events 14

7 Systematic uncertainties 17
7.1 Experimental uncertainties 18
7.2 Modelling uncertainties 18

8 Results 20
8.1 Results of the profile likelihood fit 21
8.2 Upper limits on cross-sections, EFT coefficients and branching ratios 24
8.3 Comparison of expected upper limits 25

9 Conclusions 26

1 Introduction

Direct searches for on-shell production of new heavy particles at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have not
yet been successful. For this reason, indirect searches targeting non-standard couplings among Standard
Model (SM) particles attract increasing interest. Among these analyses are searches for flavour-changing
neutral-current (FCNC) processes in the top-quark sector. The SM does not contain FCNC processes
at tree level, and even though these processes exist at higher orders, they are suppressed due to the
Glashow–Iliopoulous–Maiani mechanism [1]. Compared to the 𝑏-quark sector, where decays of 𝑏-hadrons
via FCNCs were first observed in 1995 [2], FCNC decays of top quarks are even more suppressed.
Depending on the decay mode, FCNC branching ratios (B) of the top quark are predicted to range from
10−12 to 10−17 [3], and are thus well below the experimentally accessible regime, at present and in the
foreseeable future. The observation of FCNC top-quark decays or top-quark production via FCNCs would
therefore be an unambiguous signal of physics beyond the SM.

2
Figure 1: Leading-order Feynman diagram of non-SM production of a single top quark via the FCNC process
𝑢(𝑐) + 𝑔 → 𝑡.

Many extensions of the SM predict significantly higher rates for FCNC processes in the top-quark
sector. These extensions include new scalar particles introduced in two-Higgs-doublet models [4, 5] or in
supersymmetry [6–8]. In certain regions of the parameter space of these models, the predicted FCNC
branching ratios of top quarks can be as large as 10−5 to 10−3 and thus become detectable at the LHC.
Searches for FCNCs involving a top quark and a gluon were performed at the Tevatron [9, 10] and in data
from Run 1 of the LHC [11–13]. Rather than looking for the top-quark decays 𝑡 → 𝑢 + 𝑔 and 𝑡 → 𝑐 + 𝑔
in top-quark–antiquark pair (𝑡 𝑡¯) production, these analyses searched for the production of a single top
quark (𝑡) via the FCNC processes 𝑢 + 𝑔 → 𝑡 (𝑢𝑔𝑡 process) and 𝑐 + 𝑔 → 𝑡 (𝑐𝑔𝑡 process), exploiting specific
kinematic features of single-top-quark production to separate a potential signal from the large 𝑊+jets
and multijet backgrounds. The analysis presented in this paper extends the Run 1 ATLAS search to the
Run 2 data set collected with the ATLAS detector in the years 2015 to 2018, during which the LHC
operated at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. Conceptually, the scope of the analysis is expanded by
performing independently optimised searches for the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 and 𝑐𝑔𝑡 processes. Differences between these
two processes are due to differences in the parton distribution functions (PDFs) for valence and sea quarks.
For top antiquarks the charge-conjugate processes are implied. The FCNC interaction is assumed to be
left-handed.
The event selection targets the 𝑡 → 𝑒 + 𝜈𝑏 and 𝑡 → 𝜇+ 𝜈𝑏 decay modes of the top quark. However, there
is also additional but lower acceptance for events with the decay 𝑡 → 𝜏 + 𝜈𝑏 and the subsequent decay of
the 𝜏-lepton into 𝑒 + 𝜈𝑒 𝜈¯ 𝜏 or 𝜇+ 𝜈 𝜇 𝜈¯ 𝜏 . A leading-order (LO) Feynman diagram illustrating the signature
of the targeted scattering events is shown in Figure 1. Considering the signature of the signal events, the
required reconstructed objects are exactly one charged-lepton candidate (an electron or a muon) with high
transverse momentum (𝑝 T ), exactly one jet which is identified to originate with high probability from a
𝑏-quark, and large missing transverse momentum as an indication of a high-𝑝 T neutrino.
The main background processes are 𝑊+ 𝑏 𝑏¯ production, 𝑡-channel single-top-quark (𝑡𝑞) production, and 𝑡 𝑡¯
production. Artificial neural networks (NNs) are used to separate signal events from background events. The
observed distributions of the NN discriminants are analysed statistically with a profile maximum-likelihood
fit in which all systematic uncertainties are treated as nuisance parameters. The results are interpreted in an
effective field theory framework provided by the TopFCNC model [14].
The structure of the paper is as follows. A brief description of the ATLAS detector is given in Section 2,
followed by a comprehensive summary of the collision data and the samples of simulated events in Section 3.
Section 4 describes the reconstruction of detector-level objects and the event selection. The modelling of

3
multijet background events and the estimation of their rate is discussed in Section 5. Section 6 provides
details about the separation of signal and background events using NNs. Systematic uncertainties are
outlined in Section 7 and the results are presented in Section 8. Conclusions are given in Section 9.

2 The ATLAS detector

The ATLAS detector [15] at the LHC covers nearly the entire solid angle around the collision point.1 It
consists of an inner tracking detector surrounded by a thin superconducting solenoid, electromagnetic
and hadronic calorimeters, and a muon spectrometer incorporating three large superconducting toroidal
magnets.
The inner-detector system (ID) is immersed in a 2 T axial magnetic field and provides charged-particle
tracking in the range |𝜂| < 2.5. The high-granularity silicon pixel detector covers the vertex region and
typically provides four measurements per track, the first hit normally being in the insertable B-layer
installed before Run 2 [16, 17]. It is followed by the silicon microstrip tracker, which usually provides
eight measurements per track. These silicon detectors are complemented by the transition radiation tracker
(TRT), which enables radially extended track reconstruction up to |𝜂| = 2.0. The TRT also provides
electron identification information based on the fraction of hits (typically 30 in total) above a higher
energy-deposit threshold corresponding to transition radiation.
The calorimeter system covers the pseudorapidity range |𝜂| < 4.9. Within the region |𝜂| < 3.2,
electromagnetic calorimetry is provided by barrel and endcap high-granularity lead/liquid-argon (LAr)
calorimeters, with an additional thin LAr presampler covering |𝜂| < 1.8 to correct for energy loss in material
upstream of the calorimeters. Hadronic calorimetry is provided by the steel/scintillator-tile calorimeter,
segmented into three barrel structures within |𝜂| < 1.7, and two copper/LAr hadronic endcap calorimeters.
The solid angle coverage is completed with forward copper/LAr and tungsten/LAr calorimeter modules
optimised for electromagnetic and hadronic measurements respectively.
The muon spectrometer (MS) comprises separate trigger and high-precision tracking chambers measuring
the deflection of muons in a magnetic field generated by superconducting air-core toroids. The field integral
of the toroids ranges between 2.0 and 6.0 T m across most of the detector. A set of precision chambers
covers the region |𝜂| < 2.7 with three layers of monitored drift tubes, complemented by cathode-strip
chambers in the forward region, where the background is highest. The muon trigger system covers the
range |𝜂| < 2.4 with resistive-plate chambers in the barrel, and thin-gap chambers in the endcap regions.
Interesting events are selected to be recorded by the first-level trigger system implemented in custom
hardware, followed by selections made by algorithms implemented in software in the high-level trigger [18].
The first-level trigger accepts events from the 40 MHz bunch crossings at a rate below 100 kHz, which the
high-level trigger reduces in order to record events to disk at about 1 kHz.
An extensive software suite [19] is used in the reconstruction and analysis of real and simulated data, in
detector operations, and in the trigger and data acquisition systems of the experiment.

1 ATLAS uses a right-handed coordinate system with its origin at the nominal interaction point (IP) in the centre of the detector
and the 𝑧-axis along the beam pipe. The 𝑥-axis points from the IP to the centre of the LHC ring, and the 𝑦-axis points
upwards. Cylindrical coordinates (𝑟, 𝜙) are used in the transverse plane, 𝜙 being the azimuthal angle around the 𝑧-axis.
The pseudorapidity
√︁ is defined in terms of the polar angle 𝜃 as 𝜂 = − ln tan(𝜃/2). Angular distance is measured in units of
Δ𝑅 ≡ (Δ𝜂) 2 + (Δ𝜙) 2 .

4
3 Samples of data and simulated events

The analysis uses proton–proton (𝑝 𝑝) collision data recorded with the ATLAS detector in the years 2015
to 2018 at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. After applying data-quality requirements [20], the data set
corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 with a relative uncertainty of 1.7% [21]. The LUCID-2
detector [22] was used for the primary luminosity measurements. At the high instantaneous luminosity
reached at the LHC, events were affected by additional inelastic 𝑝 𝑝 collisions in the same and neighbouring
bunch crossings (pile-up). The average number of interactions per bunch crossing was 33.7.
Events were selected online during data taking by single-electron or single-muon triggers [23, 24]. Multiple
triggers were used to increase the selection efficiency. The lowest-threshold triggers utilised isolation
requirements for reducing the trigger rate. The isolated-lepton triggers had 𝑝 T thresholds of 20 GeV for
muons and 24 GeV for electrons in 2015 data, and 26 GeV for both lepton types in 2016, 2017 and 2018
data. They were complemented by other triggers with higher 𝑝 T thresholds but no isolation requirements
in order to increase the trigger efficiency.
Large sets of simulated events from signal and background processes were produced with event generator
programs based on the Monte Carlo (MC) method to model the recorded and selected data. After
event generation, the response of the ATLAS detector was simulated using the Geant4 toolkit [25]
with a full detector model [26] or a fast simulation [27, 28] which employed a parameterisation of the
calorimeter response. To account for pile-up effects, minimum-bias interactions were superimposed on the
hard-scattering events and the resulting events were weighted to reproduce the observed pile-up distribution.
The minimum-bias events were simulated using Pythia 8.186 [29] with the A3 [30] set of tuned parameters
and the NNPDF2.3lo PDF set [31]. Finally, the simulated events were reconstructed using the same
software as applied to the collision data. Except for the multijet background, the same event selection
requirements were applied and the selected events were passed through the same analysis chain. Small
corrections were applied to simulated events such that the lepton trigger and reconstruction efficiencies, jet
energy calibration and 𝑏-tagging efficiency were in better agreement with the response observed in data.
More details of the simulated event samples are provided in the following subsections.

3.1 Samples of simulated events from the 𝒖𝒈𝒕 and 𝒄𝒈𝒕 FCNC processes

Simulated events from the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 and 𝑐𝑔𝑡 processes were produced with the METOP 1.0 event generator [32,
33] at next-to-leading order (NLO) in quantum chromodynamics (QCD). The difference between LO and
NLO is very relevant for the analysis since a veto on a second jet is applied in the event selection by
requiring exactly one reconstructed jet with 𝑝 T > 30 GeV. The Lorentz structure of the vertex coupling
was taken to be left-handed. It was verified that the shapes of kinematic distributions of both samples
are independent of the values of the coupling constants used for the event generation. The top quark was
assumed to decay as in the SM and the decay was simulated using MadSpin [34, 35]. Only leptonic decays
of the 𝑊 boson originating from top-quark decay were considered, including 𝑒 ± , 𝜇± and 𝜏 ± leptons. The
renormalisation scale 𝜇r and the factorisation scale 𝜇f were set to the top-quark mass 𝑚 𝑡 , for which a value
of 𝑚 𝑡 = 172.5 GeV was used. The CT10 set of PDFs [36] was used for event generation. Parton showers
and the hadronisation were simulated with Pythia 8.235 [37] with the A14 set of tune parameters [38]. In
the METOP+Pythia set-up, hard gluon emissions can arise in both the NLO matrix-element generator
and the parton-shower generator. The matching between the two generators was achieved by limiting the
phase-space region of the first parton-shower emission in a way that depends on the transverse momentum

5
of the top quark. The matching scale between the matrix-element generator and the parton shower was set
to 10 GeV.
Samples with alternative generator settings were produced to estimate systematic uncertainties. Samples
with 𝜇r = 𝜇f = 2 · 𝑚 𝑡 and 𝜇r = 𝜇f = 0.5 · 𝑚 𝑡 were used to evaluate the impact of the scale choice on the
signal model. The uncertainty in modelling parton showers was evaluated with METOP signal samples in
which parton showers were generated by Herwig 7.0.4 [39, 40] instead of Pythia. The METOP+Herwig
set-up used the same PDF set as the nominal sample, CT10. In addition, METOP+Pythia samples with a
different matching scale of 15 GeV were produced to evaluate the uncertainties due to the choice of this
scale. All samples of the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 and 𝑐𝑔𝑡 processes were passed through the fast detector simulation.

3.2 Simulation of 𝒕 𝒕¯ and SM single-top-quark production

Samples of simulated events from 𝑡 𝑡¯ and single-top-quark production were generated using the Powheg Box v2 [41–
47] NLO matrix-element generator, setting 𝑚 𝑡 = 172.5 GeV. For 𝑡 𝑡¯ and 𝑡𝑊 production as well as 𝑠-
channel single-top-quark production (𝑡 𝑏¯ production) the NNPDF3.0nlo PDF set [48] implementing the
five-flavour scheme was used, while 𝑡-channel single-top-quark events (𝑡𝑞 production) were produced with
the NNPDF3.0nlo_nf4 PDF set, which implements the four-flavour scheme. Parton showers, hadronisation,
and the underlying event were modelled using Pythia 8.230 with the A14 set of tuned parameters and
the NNPDF2.3lo PDF set. The Powheg Box+Pythia generator set-up applies a matching scheme to
the modelling of hard emissions in the two programs. The matrix-element-to-parton-shower matching is
steered by the ℎdamp parameter, which controls the 𝑝 T of the first additional gluon emission beyond the
LO Feynman diagram in the parton shower and therefore regulates the high-𝑝 T emission against which
the 𝑡 𝑡¯ system recoils. Event generation was run with ℎdamp = 1.5 × 𝑚 𝑡 [49]. The renormalisation and
√︃
factorisation scales were set dynamically on an event-by-event basis, namely to 𝜇r = 𝜇f = 𝑚 2𝑡 + 𝑝 2T (𝑡) for
√︃
𝑡 𝑡¯ production and to 𝜇r = 𝜇f = 4 𝑚 2𝑏 + 𝑝 2T (𝑏) for 𝑡𝑞 production, with 𝑝 T (𝑡) being the 𝑝 T of the top quark
and 𝑝 T (𝑏) being the 𝑝 T of the 𝑏-quark originating from the initial-state gluon, splitting into a 𝑏 𝑏¯ pair. The
scale choice for 𝑡𝑞 production followed a recommendation of Ref. [47]. When generating 𝑡𝑊 events, the
diagram-removal scheme [50] was employed to handle the interference with 𝑡 𝑡¯ production [49].
In the case of 𝑡 𝑡¯ production, top-quark decays were handled by Powheg Box directly, while in the case of
single-top-quark production, top-quark decays were modelled by MadSpin. The decays of bottom and
charm hadrons were simulated using the EvtGen 1.6.0 program [51] for all samples involving top-quark
production.
The 𝑡 𝑡¯ production cross-section was scaled to 𝜎(𝑡 𝑡¯) = 832+47
−51
pb, the value obtained from next-to-next-to-
leading-order (NNLO) predictions from the Top++ 2.0 program (see Ref. [52] and references therein),
which includes the resummation of next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic (NNLL) soft-gluon terms. The
total cross-sections for 𝑡𝑞 and 𝑡 𝑏¯ production were computed at NLO in QCD with the Hathor v2.1
program [53, 54] and the corresponding samples of simulated events were scaled to the following values:
𝜎(𝑡𝑞) = 136.0+5.5 +4.1
−4.7 pb, 𝜎( 𝑡 𝑞) = 81.0−3.7 pb and 𝜎(𝑡 𝑏 + 𝑡 𝑏) = 10.3 ± 0.38 pb. The cross-section used for
¯ ¯ ¯
normalising the 𝑡𝑊 sample is 𝜎(𝑡𝑊 + 𝑡¯𝑊) = 71.7 ± 3.8 pb [55, 56]. All cross-section calculations assumed
𝑚 𝑡 = 172.5 GeV as a fixed value.

6
3.3 Simulation of 𝑾+jets and 𝒁+jets production

The production of 𝑊 bosons and 𝑍 bosons in association with jets, including heavy-flavour jets in particular,
was simulated with the Sherpa 2.2.1 generator [57]. In this set-up, NLO-accurate matrix elements for up to
two partons and LO-accurate matrix elements for up to four partons were calculated with the Comix [58]
and OpenLoops 1 [59–61] libraries. The default Sherpa parton shower [62] based on Catani–Seymour
dipole factorisation and the cluster hadronisation model [63] were used. The generation employed the
dedicated set of tuned parameters developed by the Sherpa authors and the NNPDF3.0nlo PDF set.
The NLO matrix elements of a given jet multiplicity were matched to the parton shower using a colour-exact
variant of the MC@NLO algorithm [64]. Different jet multiplicities were then merged into an inclusive
sample using an improved CKKW matching procedure [65, 66] which was extended to NLO accuracy
using the MEPS@NLO prescription [67]. The merging threshold was set to 20 GeV. The 𝑊+jets and
𝑍+jets samples were normalised to NNLO predictions [68] of the total cross-sections, obtained with the
FEWZ package [69].

3.4 Simulation of diboson and multijet production

Samples of on-shell diboson production (𝑊𝑊, 𝑊 𝑍 and 𝑍 𝑍) were also simulated with the Sherpa 2.2.1
generator. Motivated by the targeted signature of the signal events, only semileptonic final states were
produced, in which one boson decayed leptonically and the other hadronically. The considered matrix
elements contain all diagrams with four electroweak vertices and they were calculated at NLO accuracy
in QCD for up to one additional parton and at LO accuracy for up to three additional parton emissions.
The matching of NLO matrix elements to the parton shower and the merging of different jet multiplicities
was done in the same way as for 𝑊/𝑍+jets production. Virtual QCD corrections were provided by
the OpenLoops 1 library. The NNPDF3.0nlo PDF set was used along with the dedicated set of tuned
parameters developed by the Sherpa authors. The diboson event samples were normalised to the total
cross-sections provided by Sherpa at NLO in QCD.
Events featuring generic high-𝑝 T multijet production may pass the event selection if a jet is misidentified
as an electron or muon, or if real electrons or muons coming from hadron decays inside the jets pass the
isolation requirements. The former are called fake leptons, the latter non-prompt leptons. In addition,
non-prompt electrons occur as a result of photon conversions in the detector material. Multijet events with
fake electrons or non-prompt electrons were modelled with a sample of simulated dijet events, while events
with non-prompt muons were modelled with collision data. The dijet event sample was generated using
Pythia 8.186 with LO matrix elements for dijet production and interfaced to a 𝑝 T -ordered parton shower.
The scales 𝜇r and 𝜇f were set to the square root of the geometric
√︃ mean of the squared transverse masses of
the two outgoing particles in the matrix element, 𝜇r = 𝜇f = 4 ( 𝑝 2T,1 + 𝑚 12 ) ( 𝑝 2T,2 + 𝑚 22 ). At generator level,
a filter was applied which required the existence of one particle-level jet with 𝑝 T > 17 GeV. The generation
used the NNPDF2.3lo PDF set and the A14 set of tuned parameters. The generated sample of dijet events
was used to model the event kinematics and to produce template distributions in the electron channel, while
the rate of the multijet background was estimated in a data-driven way as described in Section 5.

7
4 Object reconstruction and event selection

The hard-scattering process was reconstructed by identifying the particles occurring at parton level with
objects which were reconstructed at detector level, such as electron and muon candidates and hadronic jets.
The presence of high-𝑝 T neutrinos is signalled by high missing transverse momentum.

4.1 Object definitions

Events were required to have at least one vertex reconstructed from at least two ID tracks with transverse
momenta of 𝑝 T > 0.5 GeV. The primary vertex of an event was defined as the vertex with the highest sum
of 𝑝 2T over all associated ID tracks [70].
Electron candidates were reconstructed from clusters of energy deposited in the electromagnetic calorimeter
with a matched track reconstructed in the ID [71]. The pseudorapidity of clusters, 𝜂cluster , was required
to be in the range |𝜂cluster | < 2.47. However, clusters were excluded if they are in the transition region
1.37 < |𝜂cluster | < 1.52 between the central and the endcap electromagnetic calorimeters. Electron
candidates had to have 𝑝 T > 10 GeV. A likelihood-based method was used to simultaneously evaluate
several properties of electron candidates, including shower shapes in the electromagnetic calorimeter,
track quality, and detection of transition radiation produced in the TRT. Two categories of electrons with
different quality were defined [71]: the first category implemented Tight identification criteria and featured
a high rejection of non-prompt or fake electrons, while the second category with Loose criteria had higher
efficiency at the price of lower purity in prompt electrons.
Muon candidates were reconstructed by combining tracks in the MS with tracks in the ID [72]. The
tracks had to be in the range of |𝜂| < 2.5 and have 𝑝 T > 10 GeV. Similarly to electrons, two levels of
identification criteria were applied, defining Medium and Loose quality categories of muon candidates.
The tracks matched to electron and muon candidates had to point to the primary vertex, which was ensured
by requirements imposed on the transverse impact-parameter significance, |𝑑0 /𝜎(𝑑0 )| < 5.0 for electrons
and |𝑑0 /𝜎(𝑑0 )| < 3.0 for muons, and the longitudinal impact parameter, |𝑧 0 sin(𝜃)| < 0.5 mm for both
lepton flavours. Isolated Tight electrons and Medium muons were selected by requiring the amount of
energy in nearby energy depositions in the calorimeters and the scalar sum of the transverse momenta
of nearby tracks in the ID to be small. Isolation requirements were not imposed on electrons and muons
of Loose quality. Scale factors were used to correct the efficiencies in simulation in order to match the
efficiencies measured for the electron [71] and muon [73] triggers, and the reconstruction, identification
and isolation criteria.
Jets were reconstructed from topological clusters [74, 75] in the calorimeters with the anti-𝑘 𝑡 algorithm [76]
using FastJet [77] and a radius parameter of 0.4. Their energy was calibrated [78], and they had to
fulfil 𝑝 T > 20 GeV and |𝜂| < 4.5. Jets with 𝑝 T < 120 GeV and |𝜂| < 2.5 were required to pass a
requirement on the jet-vertex-tagger (JVT) discriminant [79] to suppress jets originating from pile-up
collisions. The JVT-discriminant was required to be above 0.59, which corresponds to an efficiency of 92%
for non-pile-up jets. Similarly, a forward-JVT (fJVT) requirement was used for jets with 𝑝 T < 60 GeV and
2.5 < |𝜂| < 4.5 [80]. Differences in the efficiencies of the JVT and fJVT requirements between collision
data and simulation were accounted for by corresponding scale factors.
Jets containing 𝑏-hadrons were identified (𝑏-tagged) with the MV2c10 algorithm [81], which used boosted
decision tree discriminants with several 𝑏-tagging algorithms as inputs [82]. The algorithms exploited the

8
impact parameters of charged-particle tracks, the properties of reconstructed secondary vertices and the
topology of 𝑏- and 𝑐-hadron decays inside the jets. In order to strongly reduce the misidentification rate
of 𝑐-jets and light-flavour (𝑢, 𝑑 or 𝑠) / gluon jets, a specific working point of the MV2c10 algorithm was
defined and calibrated, using the standard calibration technique [81]. With this working point, the 𝑏-tagging
efficiency for jets that originate from the hadronisation of 𝑏-quarks is 30% in simulated 𝑡 𝑡¯ events. The
𝑏-tagging rejection2 for jets that originate from the hadronisation of 𝑐-quarks (𝑢-, 𝑑-, 𝑠-quarks or gluons)
is 900 (30 000). Differences in 𝑏-tagging efficiency between simulated and collision events were corrected
for by applying a 𝑝 T -dependent scale factor to simulated events. The scale factor ranges from 0.96 ± 0.04
in the interval 30 < 𝑝 T (𝑏) ≤ 40 GeV to 1.01 ± 0.02 for 140 < 𝑝 T (𝑏) < 175 GeV, which is the highest
calibration interval relevant for this analysis. The 𝑏-tagging scale factors were obtained by comparing
samples of collision data strongly enriched in 𝑡 𝑡¯ events with samples of simulated events generated by
Powheg+Pythia 8.230. The obtained scale factors depend on the parton-shower generator used to produce
the 𝑡 𝑡¯ samples. When using samples with a different parton-shower generator, for example Sherpa to model
𝑊+jets events, or when evaluating systematic uncertainties with a set-up based on Herwig, additional
correction factors called MC-to-MC scale factors were applied.
To avoid double-counting objects satisfying more than one selection criterion, a procedure called overlap
removal was applied. Reconstructed objects defined with Loose quality criteria were removed in the
following order: electrons sharing an ID track with a muon; jets within Δ𝑅 = 0.2 of an electron, thereby
avoiding double-counting electron energy deposits as jets; electrons within Δ𝑅 = 0.4 of a remaining jet, for
reducing the impact of non-prompt electrons; jets within Δ𝑅 = 0.2 of a muon if they have two or fewer
associated tracks; muons within Δ𝑅 = 0.4 of a remaining jet, reducing the rate of non-prompt muons. The
Tight and Medium criteria were applied to those objects which survived overlap removal.
The missing transverse momentum 𝑝®Tmiss was reconstructed as the negative vector sum of the 𝑝 T of the
reconstructed leptons and jets, as well as ID tracks that pointed to the primary vertex but were not associated
with a reconstructed object [83]. The magnitude of 𝑝®Tmiss is denoted by 𝐸 Tmiss .

4.2 Basic event selection

To be selected, events were required to have exactly one electron of Tight quality or exactly one muon
of Medium quality, both with 𝑝 T > 27 GeV. The charged lepton was required to match the object which
triggered the event. To reduce contributions from 𝑡 𝑡¯ events in the dilepton decay channel, any event with an
additional lepton satisfying the Loose quality conditions with 𝑝 T > 10 GeV was rejected (dilepton veto).
Multijet events containing fake or non-prompt leptons tend to have, in contrast to events with prompt
leptons from 𝑊 and 𝑍 decays, low 𝐸 Tmiss and low 𝑊 transverse mass, which is defined as
√︃


𝑚 T (𝑊) = 2𝑝 T (ℓ)𝐸 Tmiss 1 − cos Δ𝜙 ℓ, 𝑝®Tmiss . (1)

To reduce the multijet background, 𝐸 Tmiss > 30 GeV and 𝑚 T (𝑊) > 50 GeV were applied as additional
selection requirements.
At least one jet with 𝑝 T > 30 GeV was required. In order to even further suppress the multijet background
and to remove poorly reconstructed leptons with low 𝑝 T , the event selection applied an additional

2 The rejection is defined as the inverse of the efficiency.

9
requirement based on the azimuthal angle between the primary lepton (ℓ) and the leading jet ( 𝑗1 ), i.e. the
jet with the largest 𝑝 T . This quantity is denoted by Δ𝜙 ( 𝑗1 , ℓ). The imposed requirement was
 
𝜋 − |Δ𝜙 ( 𝑗1 , ℓ) |
𝑝 T (ℓ) > 50 GeV · 1 − ,
𝜋−1
which led to a tighter 𝑝 T requirement on the charged lepton if the leading jet and the lepton had a
back-to-back topology, namely if |Δ𝜙( 𝑗1 , ℓ)| > 0.687𝜋. For the maximum separation |Δ𝜙( 𝑗1 , ℓ)| = 𝜋
between the two objects, 𝑝 T (ℓ) > 50 GeV had to be satisfied.

4.3 Definition of signal and validation regions

A signal region (SR) and three validation regions (VRs) were defined by applying further requirements
to the sample of events passing the basic selection. Only events in the SR were used at a later stage of
the analysis for a profile-likelihood fit to the data in the search for a signal contribution, while the VRs
were used to validate the modelling of different background contributions. A summary of the selection
requirements used to define the four analysis regions is given in Table 1. All requirements mentioned
before are common to all regions considered. The SR was defined by narrowing the jet requirement relative
to the basic event selection. Each event had to have exactly one jet with 𝑝 T > 30 GeV and |𝜂| < 2.5, i.e.
events with additional central jets were vetoed. This single jet had to be 𝑏-tagged. The selection efficiency
for signal events in which the top quark decays into 𝑊 𝑏 and the resulting 𝑊 boson decays leptonically was
1.36% for 𝑢𝑔𝑡 events and 2.30% for 𝑐𝑔𝑡 events. For the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 search, the SR was split according to the sign
of the charge of the primary lepton sgn 𝑞(ℓ). Two NN discriminants 𝐷 1 and 𝐷 2 , described in Section 6,
were formed to separate signal and background events in these three SRs.
The first VR was defined for validating the modelling of the events kinematics of 𝑊+jets production
(𝑊+jets VR) by the Sherpa 2.2.1 generator. To suppress top-quark backgrounds a less stringent 𝑏-tagging
requirement was used. Exactly one jet with 𝑝 T > 30 GeV was required to be 𝑏-tagged at a working point
with an efficiency of 60%. All other selection requirements were the same as for the SR. However, events in
the SR were vetoed. The modified 𝑏-tagging requirement leads to a different flavour composition of the jets
in the 𝑊+jets VR compared to the SR; the components of 𝑊+𝑐-jets and 𝑊+light-flavour jets are increased
relative to 𝑊+𝑏-jets. To enrich the region further in 𝑊+jets events and reduce the number of signal events,
the NN discriminant 𝐷 1 , specified in Section 6, was required to be in the range 0.3 < 𝐷 1 < 0.6. The
modelling of events with positive lepton charge was separately checked by requiring the NN discriminant
𝐷 2 to be in the range 0.3 < 𝐷 2 < 0.6, defining the ℓ + 𝑊+jets VR. When normalising the FCNC processes
to the observed limits from the previous ATLAS results obtained at a centre-of-mass energy of 8 TeV, the
FCNC signal contamination is 1.2% in the 𝑊+jets VR and 0.9% in the ℓ + 𝑊+jets VR.
The second VR was enriched in 𝑡 𝑡¯ events by selecting events with exactly two 𝑏-tagged jets using the 30%
𝑏-tagging working point (𝑡 𝑡¯ VR). When normalising the FCNC processes to the observed limits from the
previous ATLAS results obtained at a centre-of-mass energy of 8 TeV, the FCNC signal contamination
is at a very low level of a few times 10−4 . The third VR checked the modelling of 𝑡𝑞 events (𝑡𝑞 VR).
Events with exactly two jets were required. Exactly one of the jets had to be 𝑏-tagged at the 30% efficiency
working point, while the second jet was required to be in the forward region with |𝜂| > 2.5, which is a
characteristic feature of 𝑡𝑞 events. Thus, the 𝑡𝑞 VR was a subset of the SR, since there was no condition
on jets in the forward region when defining the SR. To further enhance the fraction of 𝑡𝑞 events and to
suppress signal events, the NN discriminant 𝐷 1 was required to be in the range 0.2 < 𝐷 1 < 0.4. The
modelling of events with positive lepton charge was separately checked by requiring the NN discriminant

10
Table 1: Summary of selection requirements used to define the four analysis regions. The left column lists the
observables on which the requirements are based. The first part of the table lists requirements which are common to
all four analysis regions. Tight electrons and medium muons were counted based on a 𝑝 T threshold of 27 GeV and
they are a subset of the corresponding Loose quality category. Loose charged leptons had to exceed a threshold of
𝑝 T (ℓ) = 10 GeV. The transverse mass of the 𝑊 boson, 𝑚 T (𝑊), is defined in Eq. (1). The efficiency of the 𝑏-tagging
working point used to identify 𝑏-jets is denoted by 𝜖 𝑏 . The symbol 𝐷 1 represents one of the NN discriminants
defined in Section 6.

Observable Common requirements

𝑛Tight (𝑒) + 𝑛Medium (𝜇) =1

𝑛Loose (𝑒) + 𝑛Loose (𝜇) =1
𝐸 Tmiss > 30 GeV
𝑚 T (𝑊) > 50 GeV
𝑛( 𝑗) ≥1
 
𝜋− |Δ𝜙 ( 𝑗1 ,ℓ) |
𝑝 T (ℓ) > 50 GeV · 1 − 𝜋−1

Analysis regions
SR 𝑊+jets VR 𝑡 𝑡¯ VR 𝑡𝑞 VR

𝑛(|𝜂( 𝑗)| < 2.5) =1 =1 =2 =1

𝑛(𝑏) =1 =1 =2 =1
𝜖𝑏 30% 60% (veto 30%) 30% 30%
𝑛(|𝜂( 𝑗)| > 2.5) ≥0 ≥0 ≥0 =1
𝐷 1(2) – 0.3 < 𝐷 1(2) < 0.6 – 0.2 < 𝐷 1(2) < 0.4

𝐷 2 to be in the range 0.2 < 𝐷 2 < 0.4, defining the ℓ + 𝑡𝑞 VR. When normalising the FCNC processes to
the observed limits from the previous ATLAS results obtained at a centre-of-mass energy of 8 TeV, the
FCNC signal contamination is 1.2% in the 𝑡𝑞 VR (𝑐𝑔𝑡 analysis) and 0.8% in the ℓ + 𝑡𝑞 VR.

5 Estimation of the multijet background

By requiring electron and muon candidates to be isolated, the object definition and the event selection
strongly favour prompt leptons originating from decays of 𝑊 bosons or 𝑍 bosons. However, there is a
small probability for non-prompt electrons or muons occurring in hadron decays, either directly or through
the decay of a 𝜏-lepton, to be reconstructed as isolated leptons. The main source is 𝑏-hadron decays in
jets, but 𝑐-hadrons and long-lived weakly decaying states such as 𝜋 ± and 𝐾 mesons also contribute. In
addition, prompt electrons are mimicked by fake electrons which arise from the misidentification of direct

11
photons, photons from 𝜋 0 decays, or bremsstrahlung and photon conversions. Even though the probabilities
of misidentification are relatively low, some multijet events still pass the selection and contribute to
the background, since their production cross-section is approximately three orders of magnitude higher
than the cross-sections of top-quark production processes. As the mechanisms of misidentification are
not well modelled by the detector simulation, the rate of the multijet background was determined in a
data-driven way by fitting the 𝐸 Tmiss distribution for events with an electron (electron channel) and the
𝑚 T (𝑊) distribution for events with a muon (muon channel).
In the electron channel, the multijet background was modelled using the jet-electron method [84]. Simulated
events from dijet production (see Section 3.4 for a description of the sample) were selected if they contained
a jet depositing a large fraction (>80%) of its energy in the electromagnetic calorimeter. This jet was
classified as an electron, the jet-electron, and treated in the subsequent steps of the analysis in the same way
as a properly identified prompt electron. The jet-electrons had to pass the nominal 𝑝 T and |𝜂| requirements,
but electron identification requirements were not applied. Since the relative numbers of electrons detected
in the barrel (|𝜂| < 1.37) and endcap (|𝜂| > 1.52) sections of the electromagnetic calorimeter were not
modelled well enough by the sample of simulated dijet events, the electron channel was divided into two
subchannels: a barrel-electron channel and an endcap-electron channel.
In the muon channel, multijet events were modelled with collision events highly enriched in non-prompt
muons [84]. Starting from the same sample of collision events as the nominal selection, a subset of
events enriched in non-prompt muons was obtained by inverting or modifying some of the muon isolation
requirements, such that the resulting sample did not overlap with the nominal sample. The kinematic
requirements on muon 𝑝 T and |𝜂| remained the same as for the nominal selection.
The rate of the multijet background was normalised by performing a binned maximum-likelihood fit to the
𝐸 Tmiss and 𝑚 T (𝑊) distributions observed in the electron and muon channels, respectively. All selection
criteria were applied, except for the 𝐸 Tmiss requirement in the electron channels (barrel and endcap) and
the requirement on 𝑚 T (𝑊) in the muon channel. The three channels were further split according to the
sign of the charge of the primary lepton sgn 𝑞(ℓ), leading to six channels per analysis region. Separate fits
were performed for the SR and the three VRs. In each region, all six channels were fit simultaneously.
Since the multijet background is expected to be independent of lepton charge, its rates in the ℓ + and the
ℓ − channels were assumed to be the same. On the other hand, the rates of some of the other background
processes, i.e. 𝑡𝑞, 𝑡 𝑏¯ and 𝑊+jets production, are different in the ℓ + and the ℓ − channels due to the PDFs.
For the purpose of these fits, scattering processes other than multijet production were grouped in the
following way: (1) top-quark production comprises 𝑡 𝑡¯ production and all three single-top-quark production
processes (𝑡𝑞, 𝑡 𝑏¯ and 𝑡𝑊 production), (2) 𝑊+jets production, including the production of light-quark,
gluon, 𝑏-quark and 𝑐-quark jets in association with a 𝑊 boson, and (3) 𝑍+jets and diboson production
(𝑊𝑊, 𝑊 𝑍 and 𝑍 𝑍 production). The templates of the fit distributions for these three groups of processes
were derived from simulated events and the rates were normalised to the theory predictions reported in
Section 3. As the shapes of the distributions for 𝑍+jets and diboson production are very similar to those of
𝑊+jets production, the rates of 𝑍+jets and diboson production were fixed in the fitting process to the values
predicted by simulation. Uncertainties in the normalisation of top-quark production and 𝑊+jets production
were accounted for by Gaussian constraints on the normalisation factors of these groups of processes. In
the 𝑊+jets VR, only the rate of 𝑊+jets production was varied, while the top-quark background was fixed.
Similarly, in the 𝑡 𝑡¯ VR and 𝑡𝑞 VR only the rate of top-quark production was varied, while the rate of 𝑊+jets
production was fixed. In the SR, both rates were free to vary within uncertainties.
The fits yielded estimates of the rates of the multijet background in the four analysis regions before applying
the requirements on 𝐸 Tmiss and 𝑚 T (𝑊). An uncertainty of 30% was assigned to the estimates, covering

12
 60000
Events / 10 GeV

Events / 10 GeV
ATLAS s=13 TeV, 139 fb-1 ATLAS s=13 TeV, 139 fb-1
e + barrel SR Data µ+ SR Data
tq ,t q tq ,t q
40000 t t ,Wt,t b ,t b
t t ,Wt,t b ,t b
W +jets 40000
Z +jets,VV W +jets
Multijet Z +jets,VV
Uncertainty Multijet
Uncertainty
20000 20000

0 0
Pred.

Pred.
1.2
Data

Data
1.2
1 1
0.8 0.8
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 200
Emiss
T [GeV] mT(W) [GeV]
(a) (b)

Figure 2: Illustration of the estimation of the multijet background by fitting the 𝐸 Tmiss and 𝑚 T (𝑊) distributions in the
analysis regions. As representative examples, the 𝐸 Tmiss distribution is shown in the 𝑒 + barrel channel in (a) and the
𝑚 T (𝑊) distribution is shown in the 𝜇+ channel in (b). Both distributions are in the SR. The stacked histograms were
normalised to the fit result. The uncertainty band represents the uncertainty due to limited sample size and the rate
uncertainties of the different processes (20% for 𝑊+jets production, 30% for the multijet background and 6% for the
top-quark processes). The ratio of observed to predicted (Pred.) numbers of events in each bin is shown in the lower
panel. Events beyond the axis range are included in the last bin.

alternative results obtained in studies of fits to different discriminating observables. As examples illustrating
the fit results, Figure 2 shows the 𝐸 Tmiss distribution in the 𝑒 + barrel channel of the SR and the 𝑚 T (𝑊)
distribution in the 𝜇+ channel of the SR. The stacked histograms were normalised to the fit result. The
low 𝐸 Tmiss and 𝑚 T (𝑊) regions drove the estimate of the multijet background, since its fraction of the total
yield was larger there than at higher values of the two observables. The yield of the multijet background
after applying the requirements of 𝐸 Tmiss > 30 GeV and 𝑚 T (𝑊) > 50 GeV is based on the normalised
histograms of the multijet background normalised to the fit result and was later used as a starting value for
the profile-likelihood fit in the final statistical analysis. The normalisation factors obtained for top-quark
production and 𝑊+jets production were applied to normalise the respective backgrounds when validating
the modelling of kinematic distributions prior to the statistical analysis of the NN discriminants, but they
were not used in the statistical analysis itself.
All backgrounds other than the multijet background were modelled by simulated events and the event
rate was estimated by scaling the samples of simulated events to the integrated luminosity of the sample
of collision data being analysed. The event kinematics of the multijet background is described with the
jet-electron model and with non-prompt muon events, normalising the rate of the multijet background to
the results of the fits to the 𝐸 Tmiss and 𝑚 T (𝑊) distributions. Figure 3 provides a summary of the fractional
contributions of the different background processes to the expected event yield in the SR. The three largest
backgrounds are 𝑊+jets production, the combined 𝑡 𝑡¯-𝑡𝑊-𝑡 𝑏¯ background, and 𝑡𝑞 production.

13
 ATLAS s=13 TeV, 139 fb-1
SR

W +jets 36.8%

Z +jets,VV 4.8%
Multijet 7.6%

tq ,t q 22.2% t t ,Wt,t b ,t b 28.7%

Figure 3: Pie chart of the background composition of the SR. The SR comprises the two electron channels (barrel
and endcap) and the muon channel. The pre-fit event yields are reported in Table 3.

6 Neural networks separating signal and background events

Two NNs were employed to enhance the separation of signal events from background events by combining
several kinematic (input) variables to form two discriminants named 𝐷 1 and 𝐷 2 . The kinematics of signal
events depends on whether the quark (antiquark) in the initial state is a valence quark or a sea quark
(antiquark). Sea quarks (antiquarks) and valence quarks of the proton carry, on average, different fractions
𝑥 of the proton momentum and this difference leads to different rapidity distributions for the corresponding
produced top quarks (antiquarks) and their decay products. Top quarks produced in the 𝑢 + 𝑔 → 𝑡 process
tend to have higher absolute rapidity values than top antiquarks produced in the 𝑢¯ + 𝑔 → 𝑡¯ process and top
quarks or top antiquarks produced in the 𝑐 + 𝑔 → 𝑡 and 𝑐¯ + 𝑔 → 𝑡¯ processes. The two discriminants 𝐷 1
and 𝐷 2 exploit these differences.
The first network was trained only with events from the 𝑐𝑔𝑡 process and was thus optimised for events
featuring a sea quark or antiquark in the initial state. The discriminant obtained from this network is defined
to be 𝐷 1 . The second NN was trained with events from top-quark production via the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 process as signal,
excluding the charge-conjugate process of top-antiquark production. The corresponding discriminant is
called 𝐷 2 . The discriminant 𝐷 1 is used in a search for the 𝑐𝑔𝑡 process. The second analysis searches
for the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 process and makes use of both discriminants, 𝐷 1 and 𝐷 2 . In this case, two SRs were defined
based on sgn 𝑞(ℓ). The discriminant 𝐷 1 was used in the ℓ − channel targeting top-antiquark production
(𝑢¯ + 𝑔 → 𝑡¯). The discriminant 𝐷 2 was computed in the ℓ + channel, aimed at the search for direct top-quark
production (𝑢 + 𝑔 → 𝑡).
The NNs were implemented using the NeuroBayes package [85, 86], which combines a three-layer
feed-forward NN with a complex and robust preprocessing of the input variables before they are presented
to the NN. The training of the NNs was based on generated signal and background events and used
back-propagation. As a non-linear activation function, NeuroBayes uses the symmetric sigmoid function
2
𝑆(𝑥) = −1
1 + 𝑒 −𝑥
which maps the interval (−∞, +∞ ) to the interval (−1, +1 ). In the region close to zero, the sigmoid

14
function has a linear response. The 𝐷 1 and 𝐷 2 discriminants were obtained by linearly scaling the outputs
of the corresponding NNs to the interval (0, 1).
Sets of input variables were selected based on studies considering the sensitivity of the analyses as given
by the expected upper limits on the production cross-sections (Section 8 provides more details about the
computation of upper limits), how well the observed distributions of the input variables are modelled
by simulation, and the ranking of the input variables provided by the preprocessing step of NeuroBayes.
The 𝐷 1 NN used 12 input variables, the 𝐷 2 NN nine. Six of those variables were common to both NNs.
Table 2 provides the list of input variables. Some of the variables, for example Δ𝑅(𝑊, 𝑏) and 𝑚(ℓ𝜈𝑏),

Table 2: Input variables to the two NNs.

Variable Definition

Variables common to the 𝐷 1 and 𝐷 2 NNs

𝑝 T (𝑏) Transverse momentum of the 𝑏-tagged jet.

𝑚(ℓ𝑏) Invariant mass of the charged lepton (ℓ) and the 𝑏-tagged jet (𝑏).
𝑚 T (𝑊) Transverse mass of the reconstructed 𝑊 boson.
Δ𝑅(𝑊, 𝑏) Distance in the 𝜂–𝜙 plane between the reconstructed 𝑊 boson and the 𝑏-tagged jet.
|Δ𝜙(𝑊, 𝑏)| Azimuthal angle between the reconstructed 𝑊 boson and the 𝑏-tagged jet.
𝑚(ℓ𝜈𝑏) Top-quark mass reconstructed from the charged lepton, neutrino, and 𝑏-tagged jet.

Variables used only for the 𝐷 1 NN

sgn 𝑞(ℓ) Sign of the charge of the primary lepton.

𝐻T (ℓ, 𝑏, 𝐸 Tmiss ) Scalar sum of the transverse momenta of all reconstructed objects.
𝜂(𝑊) Pseudorapidity of the reconstructed 𝑊 boson.
|Δ𝜙(ℓ, 𝑝®Tmiss )| Azimuthal angle between the charged lepton and 𝑝®Tmiss .
|Δ𝜙(𝑊, ℓ)| Azimuthal angle between the reconstructed 𝑊 boson and the charged lepton.
𝑝 T (ℓ𝜈𝑏) Transverse momentum of the reconstructed top quark.

Variables used only for the 𝐷 2 NN

𝜂(𝑏) Pseudorapidity of the 𝑏-tagged jet.

𝑝 T (𝑊) Transverse momentum of the reconstructed 𝑊 boson.
Δ𝑅(ℓ𝜈𝑏, 𝑊) Distance in the 𝜂–𝜙 plane between the reconstructed top quark and 𝑊 boson.

required reconstruction of the leptonically decaying 𝑊 boson, which in turn required reconstruction of the
neutrino momentum. While the 𝑥- and 𝑦-components of the neutrino momentum, 𝑝 𝑥 (𝜈) and 𝑝 𝑦 (𝜈), were
approximated by the components of 𝑝®Tmiss , the 𝑧-component, 𝑝 𝑧 (𝜈), was determined by constraining the
mass of the reconstructed 𝑊 boson to match the measured world average. If the resulting quadratic equation
had two real solutions, the one with the smallest | 𝑝 𝑧 (𝜈)| was chosen. In the case of complex solutions,
which could occur due to the limited 𝐸 Tmiss resolution, a kinematic fit was performed that rescaled the

15
 Fraction of events / 0.025

Fraction of events / 0.05

0.3 ATLAS Simulation s = 13 TeV ATLAS Simulation s = 13 TeV
SR l+ SR
cg → t FCNC ug → t FCNC
tq ,t q 0.2 tq ,t q
t t ,Wt,t b ,t b t t ,Wt,t b ,t b
0.2
W +jets W +jets
Multijet Multijet

0.1
0.1

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
D1 D2
(a) (b)

Figure 4: Distributions of the 𝐷 1 and 𝐷 2 discriminants for signal and background processes. Each distribution
is normalised to unit area. The discriminant 𝐷 1 was used for 𝑐𝑔𝑡 analysis and the ℓ − channel of the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 analysis.
The discriminant 𝐷 2 was used in the ℓ + channel of the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 analysis. The histograms in (a) show the distributions
obtained in the 𝑐𝑔𝑡 analysis, that is, the distribution is evaluated for all selected events independent of sgn 𝑞(ℓ). The
distributions in the ℓ + channel of the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 analysis are shown in (b).

neutrino 𝑝 𝑥 and 𝑝 𝑦 such that the imaginary part vanished and at the same time the transverse components
of the neutrino momentum were kept as close as possible to the 𝑝®Tmiss . The 𝑊 boson was formed by adding
the four-vectors of the reconstructed neutrino and the charged lepton.
NeuroBayes uses Bayesian regularisation techniques for the training process to improve the generalisation
performance and to avoid overtraining. In general, the network infrastructure consists of one input node for
each input variable plus one bias node, an arbitrary, user-defined number of hidden nodes, and one output
node which gives a continuous output in the interval (−1, +1). For the two NNs of this analysis, 15 nodes
were used in the hidden layer and the ratio of signal to background events in the training was chosen to be
1:1. The different background processes were weighted according to their expected number of events. Only
𝑡 𝑡¯, 𝑊+jets and single-top-quark events were used as background processes in the training. The multijet
background was not used, since its modelling has considerable uncertainties and attempting to optimise
the separation of this background from signal events would likely make the results of the analysis more
sensitive to any mismodelling of the kinematics of multijet production. After the training step, samples of
simulated signal and background events as well as the observed events were processed by the NNs. The
resulting distributions of 𝐷 1 and 𝐷 2 normalised to unit area are shown in Figure 4. The signal distributions
peak at high values between 0.8 and 0.9, while the distributions of the background processes peak at low
values. Compared to the 𝑡 𝑡¯ process, which has a low event fraction in the highest bins, the 𝑡𝑞 and 𝑊+jets
production processes have higher event fractions in the most signal-like bins.
Prior to the application of the NNs to the observed collision data in the SR, the modelling of the
input variables was checked. The corresponding distributions in the VRs were validated as well. The
normalisation of the different scattering processes was taken from the fits to the 𝐸 Tmiss and 𝑚 T (𝑊)
distributions for the estimation of the multijet background, reported in Section 5. As an additional check,
the trained NNs were applied in the VRs using input variables corresponding to those in the SR. Three
examples of discriminant distributions in the VRs are presented in Figure 5. In all cases, the model
describes the observed discriminant distributions within the estimated uncertainties.

16
 Events / 0.05

Events / 0.05
ATLAS s=13 TeV, 139 fb-1 30000 ATLAS s=13 TeV, 139 fb-1
15000 tq VR tt VR
Data Data
tq ,t q
tq ,t q t t ,Wt,t b ,t b

10000 t t ,Wt,t b ,t b 20000 W +jets

Z +jets,VV
W +jets Multijet
Z +jets,VV Uncertainty
Multijet
5000 10000
Uncertainty

0 0
Pred.

Pred.
Data

Data
1.1 1.1
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
D1 D1
(a) (b)
Events / 0.05

ATLAS s=13 TeV, 139 fb-1

60000 l+ W+jets VR
Data
tq ,t q
t t ,Wt,t b ,t b
40000
W +jets
Z +jets,VV
Multijet
20000 Uncertainty

0
Pred.

1.2
Data

1
0.8
0.4 0.6 0.8 1
D2
(c)

Figure 5: Distributions of the NN discriminants 𝐷 1 and 𝐷 2 observed in (a) the 𝑡𝑞 VR, (b) the 𝑡 𝑡¯ VR and (c) the
ℓ + 𝑊+jets VR. The observed data are compared with the distribution of simulated background events normalised to
the number of expected events, accounting for the normalisation factors obtained in the fits of the 𝐸 Tmiss and 𝑚 T (𝑊)
distributions for estimating the multijet background. The uncertainty band represents the uncertainty due to limited
sample size and the rate uncertainties of the different processes (20% for 𝑊+jets production, 30% for the multijet
background and 6% for the top-quark processes). The ratio of observed to predicted (Pred.) numbers of events in
each bin is shown in the lower panel.

7 Systematic uncertainties

Several sources of systematic uncertainty affect the expected event yield from signal and background
processes as well as the shape of the NN discriminants used in the maximum-likelihood fit. The systematic
uncertainties are divided into two major categories. Experimental uncertainties are associated with the
reconstruction of the four-momenta of final-state partonic objects: electrons, muons, 𝑏-jets, and 𝐸 Tmiss as
an indication of a primary neutrino. The second category of uncertainties is related to the modelling of
scattering processes with event generators. In the following, the estimation of experimental and modelling

17
uncertainties is explained in more detail.

7.1 Experimental uncertainties

The uncertainty in the integrated luminosity of the combined 2015–2018 data set is 1.7% and is based on a
calibration of the luminosity scale using 𝑥–𝑦 beam-separation scans [21]. The luminosity uncertainty was
applied to the signal and background event yields except for the multijet background, which was estimated in
a data-driven way. Scale factors were applied to simulated events to correct for reconstruction, identification,
isolation and trigger performance differences between data and detector simulation for electrons and muons.
These scale factors, as well as the lepton momentum scale and resolution, were assessed using 𝑍 → ℓ + ℓ −
events in simulation and data [71, 72]. Their systematic uncertainties were propagated to the expected
event yields and discriminant distributions used in the maximum-likelihood fit.
The jet energy scale (JES) was calibrated using a combination of test-beam data, simulation and in situ
techniques [78]. Its uncertainty is decomposed into a set of 30 uncorrelated components, of which 29 are
non-zero in a given event depending on the type of simulation used. Sources of uncertainty contributing
to the JES uncertainties include pile-up modelling, jet flavour composition, single-particle response and
effects of jets not fully contained within the calorimeter. The uncertainty of the jet energy resolution (JER)
is represented by eight components accounting for jet-𝑝 T and 𝜂-dependent differences between simulation
and data [87]. The uncertainty in the efficiency to pass the JVT requirement for pile-up suppression was
also considered [79].
The uncertainties in the 𝑏-tagging calibration were determined for 𝑏-jets [81], broken down into 45
orthogonal components. The uncertainties depend on the 𝑝 T of the 𝑏-jets and were propagated through
the analysis as weights. Since 𝑏-jets were identified with very high purity, the misidentification rate of
𝑐-jets and light-flavour jets was very low and a dedicated calibration was not performed. Only the 𝑊+jets
background has a small component of misidentified 𝑐-jets and light-flavour jets. For other backgrounds
and for the signal processes these components are negligible. Since the rate of the 𝑊+jets background was
determined directly from the final maximum-likelihood fit, there was no need for an overall rate uncertainty
on the 𝑊+jets background. Instead a dedicated shape uncertainty was assigned to the modelling of the
contamination by 𝑐-jets and light-flavour jets. More details are given in the next section on modelling
uncertainties.
The uncertainty in 𝐸 Tmiss due to a possible miscalibration of its soft-track component was derived from
data–simulation comparisons of the 𝑝 T balance between the hard and soft 𝐸 Tmiss components [83]. To
account for pile-up distribution differences between simulation and data, the pile-up profile in the simulation
was corrected to match the one in data. The uncertainty associated with the correction factor was applied.

7.2 Modelling uncertainties

Uncertainties in the theoretical cross-sections were evaluated for the SM top-quark processes (𝑡𝑞, 𝑡 𝑡¯, 𝑡𝑊
¯ as quoted in Section 3.2. The single largest background, 𝑊+jets production, was allowed to float
and 𝑡 𝑏)
in the likelihood fit and thus a cross-section uncertainty was not applied. A symmetric uncertainty of
±20% was assigned to the 𝑍+jets production cross-section by evaluating the effect of seven variations of
𝜇r and 𝜇f in the matrix-element computation [88]. In this estimate, which is meant to account for missing
higher-order corrections, the scales were independently varied by factors of 0.5 and 2.0, avoiding the
variations with ratios of four between the two scales. The biggest impact on the cross-sections was found

18
for a correlated variation of 𝜇r and 𝜇f . The same uncertainty of ±20% was assigned to diboson production.
The uncertainty in the event yield of the multijet background is 30%.
Uncertainties in modelling parton showers and hadronisation were assigned to the FCNC signal and the
SM top-quark production processes (𝑡 𝑡¯, 𝑡𝑊, 𝑡𝑞 and 𝑡 𝑏¯ production) by comparing the nominal samples
with alternative samples for which METOP and Powheg Box were interfaced to Herwig 7.0.4 instead of
Pythia 8.235 or Pythia 8.230, respectively. When generating parton showers the MMHT2014lo [89] PDF
set was used as well as the H7-UE-MMHT [40] set of tuned parameters. The uncertainties were defined
independently for each scattering process, namely the FCNC signal process and the four SM top-quark
production processes. In addition, normalisation and shape effects were decorrelated as well.
Uncertainties related to the choice of renormalisation and factorisation scales for the matrix-element
calculations were evaluated by varying the scales in a correlated way by factors of 2 and 0.5, separately
for each process. In the case of the FCNC signal processes, dedicated samples of simulated events were
generated with varied scales. For the SM top-quark production processes and for 𝑊+jets production,
the scale variations were implemented as generator weights in the nominal sample. These weights were
propagated through the entire analysis.
The uncertainty due to the choice of a scale for matching the matrix-element calculation of the 𝑡 𝑡¯ process
to the parton shower was estimated using an additional 𝑡 𝑡¯ sample produced with the ℎdamp parameter set to
3 × 𝑚 𝑡 , while keeping all other generator settings the same as for the nominal sample of 𝑡 𝑡¯ events. The
uncertainty due to the choice of matrix-element-to-parton-shower matching scale used in the generation
of the FCNC signal samples was evaluated by comparisons with alternative samples produced with a
matching scale of 15 GeV instead of the 10 GeV scale used for the nominal sample. The uncertainty
related to the specific algorithm for matching the NLO-matrix-element computation to parton showers was
¯ by comparing samples generated
evaluated for the SM top-quark production processes (𝑡𝑞, 𝑡 𝑡¯, 𝑡𝑊 and 𝑡 𝑏)
by Powheg Box with samples generated by MadGraph5_aMC@NLO [90]. Both set-ups used Pythia for
the parton-shower computation. The effects of this matching-algorithm uncertainty on the shape of the NN
discriminants and on the event yields were decorrelated in the maximum-likelihood fit.
Uncertainties in the amount of initial-state and final-state radiation were assessed for the FCNC signal
processes and the SM top-quark production processes by varying the parameter Var3c of the A14 parton-
shower tune within the uncertainties of the tune and, for final-state radiation, by varying the renormalisation
scale 𝜇r , at which the strong coupling constant 𝛼s was evaluated, by factors of 0.5 and 2.0. The two
variations, the one of Var3c and the one of 𝜇r , were handled independently. The uncertainty due to the
scheme for removing the overlap of the 𝑡𝑊 process with 𝑡 𝑡¯ production was evaluated by comparing the
nominal sample, using the diagram-removal scheme, with a sample produced with an alternative scheme
(diagram subtraction) [50]. In all uncertainty evaluations mentioned above the alternative samples or
reweighted samples were normalised to the total cross-section of the nominal samples.
Uncertainties due to PDFs were evaluated for the 𝑡𝑞 process and the combined 𝑡 𝑡¯-𝑡𝑊-𝑡 𝑏¯ process using
the PDF4LHC15 combined PDF set [91] with 30 symmetric eigenvectors. Samples of simulated events
were reweighted to the central value and the eigenvectors of the combined PDF set. Systematically varied
templates were constructed by taking the differences between the samples reweighted to the central value
and those reweighted to the eigenvectors. In the likelihood fit the PDF uncertainties were treated as
correlated between the 𝑡𝑞 process and the combined 𝑡 𝑡¯-𝑡𝑊-𝑡 𝑏¯ process. The uncertainty in the average
number of interactions per bunch crossing was accounted for by varying accordingly the scale factors
applied to weight the simulated events in order to obtain the pile-up distribution observed in collision
data.

19
The uncertainty in the multijet background was evaluated by modifying the respective selection criteria for
the jet-lepton and the non-prompt-muon candidate. For each lepton type, two alternative selections were
defined by varying the requirements on the energy fraction measured in the electromagnetic calorimeter in
the case of the jet-lepton and by varying the isolation criteria for the muon candidates. The variations
leading to the larger deviations from the nominal set-up were chosen when defining uncertainties in the
shape of the NN discriminant distribution for the multijet background.
With a fraction of 92% the 𝑊+𝑏-jets component dominates the 𝑊+jets background. Since the number
of simulated events with jets of different flavour, 𝑐-jets or light-flavour jets, was very limited, the 𝑊+jets
template was based on the 𝑊+𝑏-jets component only. The expected event yield was scaled such that
the events with jets of different flavour were also considered. To account for small shape differences
between the NN-discriminant distributions for 𝑊+𝑏-jets, 𝑊+𝑐-jets and 𝑊+light-flavour jets, two alternative
𝑊+jets template histograms were created by adding to the nominal 𝑊+𝑏-jets component the 𝑊+𝑐-jets and
𝑊+light-flavour jets contributions with three times the expected rate. The resulting shape differences were
applied in a symmetric way in the maximum-likelihood fit, which constrained the input uncertainties to a
level of 80% for 𝑊+𝑐-jets in both searches (𝑢𝑔𝑡 and 𝑐𝑔𝑡) and 40% (70%) for 𝑊+light-flavour jets in the
𝑢𝑔𝑡 analysis (𝑐𝑔𝑡 analysis). In the 𝑐𝑔𝑡 analysis using the 𝐷 1 discriminant, the 𝑊+𝑐-jets input uncertainty
is approximately ±9% for NN discriminant values below 0.7 and rises to ±12% at high values. The
𝑊+light-flavour jets input uncertainty is approximately ±4% for NN discriminant values of 0.75 to 1.0,
while at values below 0.1 it reaches ±10%. In the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 analysis, the corresponding uncertainties in the
shapes of the 𝐷 1 and 𝐷 2 discriminants have very similar features.
The uncertainties due to the finite number of simulated events, also called the MC statistical uncertainty,
was accounted for by adding a nuisance parameter for each bin of the NN discriminant distributions
separately for each scattering process, implementing the Barlow–Beeston approach [92].

8 Results

The observed distributions of the NN discriminants were subjected to a binned maximum-likelihood fit,
probing for a potential FCNC signal. Two analyses were performed, searching separately for the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 and
𝑐𝑔𝑡 FCNC processes. The likelihood function L was constructed as a product of Poisson probability terms
over all bins of the NN discriminants. The function L (𝜇, 𝜃) ® depends on the signal-strength parameter
𝜇, a multiplicative factor to the signal production cross-section used to normalise the simulated signal
® a set of nuisance parameters including the effects of systematic uncertainties on the signal
samples, and 𝜃,
and background expectations. The range of each nuisance parameter was constrained in the likelihood
function by a Gaussian term. The signal strength of the 𝑊+jets process, 𝜇(𝑊 𝑗), was treated as a free
multiplicative factor as well. In the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 analysis, in contrast to the 𝑐𝑔𝑡 analysis, the rates of the 𝑊 + +jets and
𝑊 − +jets processes were determined separately in a simultaneous fit using two independent normalisation
parameters.
Systematically varied discriminant distributions were smoothed and nuisance parameters of systematic
uncertainties with negligible impact were entirely removed in order to reduce spurious effects in minimisation,
improve convergence of the fit, and reduce the computing time. Normalisation and shape effects of a source
of systematic uncertainty were treated separately in the pruning process.
Single-sided systematic variations were turned into symmetric variations by taking the full difference in
event yield and shape between the nominal model and the alternative model and mirroring this difference

20
in the opposite direction. For sources with two variations, their effects were made symmetric by using the
average deviation from the nominal prediction.

8.1 Results of the profile likelihood fit

The results of the maximum-likelihood fits yielded: 𝜇(𝑢𝑔𝑡) = 0.10 ± 0.183 , 𝜇(𝑊 + 𝑗) = 1.25 ± 0.15 and
𝜇(𝑊 − 𝑗) = 1.32 ± 0.17 as well as 𝜇(𝑐𝑔𝑡) = 0.15 ± 0.17 and 𝜇(𝑊 𝑗) = 1.19 ± 0.15. The normalisation
factors of the 𝑊+jets process were determined to be above 1 in all cases. This finding is similar to that from
a dedicated measurement of the cross-section of the 𝑍 + ≥1 𝑏-jet process [93]. No significant nuisance
parameters pulls were observed in either fit. The impact of systematic uncertainties on the sensitivity is
much larger than that of the data statistical uncertainties.
The five leading systematic uncertainties in the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 fit are due to the MC statistical uncertainty in the
highest bin of the NN discriminant 𝐷 2 of the 𝑊+jets process, the 𝑊+𝑐-jets shape uncertainty, the first
effective nuisance parameter of the uncertainty in the jet-energy resolution, the MC statistical uncertainty in
the second-highest bin of the NN discriminant 𝐷 2 of the 𝑊+jets process, and the normalisation component
of the uncertainty in the matrix-element-matching algorithm of the 𝑡𝑞 process. Out of these leading
uncertainties, the three non-MC-statistical uncertainties were constrained in the fit to the range of 80% to
90% of their original value. The five leading systematic uncertainties in the 𝑐𝑔𝑡 fit are due to the modelling
of the parton shower of the FCNC 𝑐𝑔𝑡 process, the shape component of the parton-shower uncertainty of
the 𝑡𝑞 process, the uncertainty in the resolution of the soft-track term of the 𝐸 Tmiss computation, the shape
component of the uncertainty in the matrix-element-matching algorithm of the 𝑡𝑞 process, and the MC
statistical uncertainty in the highest bin of the NN discriminant 𝐷 1 of the 𝑊+jets process. Out of these
leading uncertainties of the 𝑐𝑔𝑡 analysis, the fit constrained the three non-MC-statistical uncertainties to
the range of 65% to 90% of their original value.
Table 3 provides the expected, the observed, and the fitted event yields in the SR. The results of the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 and
𝑐𝑔𝑡 analyses differ slightly, but agree well within uncertainties. The event yields after the fit account for
pulls of the nuisance parameters. The fitted discriminant distributions are shown in Figures 6 and 7 for the
𝑢𝑔𝑡 and 𝑐𝑔𝑡 analyses, respectively. The observed discriminant distributions are very well described by the
fitted model and they are compatible with the background-only hypothesis.

3 The reference cross-sections of the signal processes are 𝜎(𝑢 + 𝑔 → 𝑡) × B (𝑡 → 𝑊 𝑏) × B (𝑊 → ℓ𝜈) = 6.27 pb and
𝜎(𝑐 + 𝑔 → 𝑡) × B (𝑡 → 𝑊 𝑏) × B (𝑊 → ℓ𝜈) = 8.52 pb.

21
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 6: The NN discriminants 𝐷 1 and 𝐷 2 of the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 search are shown with the post-fit normalisation applied
to the stacked histograms of the different hard-scattering processes. The histograms in (a) and (b) show the full
discriminant range in the negatively charged lepton channel and the positively charged lepton channel, respectively.
The histograms (c) and (d) show a zoomed-in view of the high discriminant region between 0.7 and 1.0. The hatched
bands represent the post-fit uncertainty of the total event yield in each bin. Correlations among uncertainties were
taken into account as determined in the fit. The fitted signal contribution is included but is barely visible because its
relative size is very small.

22
Table 3: Expected pre-fit and post-fit event yields along with the observed event yield in the SR. The quoted
uncertainties include the statistical and systematic uncertainties of the event yields. Correlations, including
anticorrelations, among the nuisance parameters related to the uncertainties were taken into account as determined in
the maximum-likelihood fit.

Process Pre-fit Post-fit 𝑐𝑔𝑡 Post-fit 𝑢𝑔𝑡

𝑢𝑔𝑡 FCNC process 0 0 1200 ± 2100

𝑐𝑔𝑡 FCNC process 0 4100 ± 4500 0
𝑡𝑞 138 600 ± 9300 149 200 ± 9400 150 000 ± 10 000
𝑡 𝑡¯, 𝑡𝑊, 𝑡 𝑏¯ 179 000 ± 17 000 179 000 ± 14 000 175 200 ± 9700
𝑊+jets 229 000 ± 30 000 281 000 ± 21 000 292 000 ± 18 000
𝑍+jets, 𝑉𝑉 29 700 ± 6000 30 000 ± 6000 29 800 ± 6000
Multijet 47 000 ± 14 000 45 000 ± 14 000 40 000 ± 12 000

Total 650 000 ± 46 000 688 600 ± 2400 688 700 ± 3500

Observed 688 380 688 380 688 380

(a) (b)

Figure 7: The NN discriminant 𝐷 1 of the 𝑐𝑔𝑡 search is shown with the post-fit normalisation applied to the stacked
histograms of the different hard-scattering processes. The histogram in (a) shows the full discriminant range. The
histogram (b) shows a zoomed-in view of the high discriminant region between 0.7 and 1.0. The hatched bands
represent the post-fit uncertainty of the total event yield in each bin. Correlations among uncertainties were taken
into account as determined in the fit.

23
8.2 Upper limits on cross-sections, EFT coefficients and branching ratios

Since the observed NN-discriminant distributions were found to be compatible with the background-only
hypothesis, upper limits were set on the cross-sections of the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 and the 𝑐𝑔𝑡 processes at the 95%
confidence level (CL). The limits were computed by applying the CLs method [94, 95] as implemented in
the RooFit package [96] to the test statistic
 
ˆˆ
L 𝜇, 𝜃® ( 𝜇)




−2 ln ­  ˆ  ® if 𝜇ˆ < 0,

 © ª
 ˆ

 ®
L 0, 𝜃 (0)

 « 

 ¬
ˆˆ
𝑞˜ 𝜇 = L 𝜇, 𝜃® ( 𝜇) (2)
−2 ln ­  ˆ  ® if 0 ≤ 𝜇ˆ ≤ 𝜇,

 © ª
®



 L ˆ
𝜇, 𝜃

 « ¬

 0
 if 𝜇ˆ > 𝜇.

ˆ
In Eq. (2), the symbols 𝜇ˆ and 𝜃® represent the values of the parameters maximising the likelihood function
ˆˆ
and 𝜃® are the values of the nuisance parameters which maximise the likelihood function for a fixed value of
𝜇. The obtained upper limits on the cross-sections times branching ratio are

𝜎(𝑢𝑔𝑡) × B (𝑡 → 𝑊 𝑏) × B (𝑊 → ℓ𝜈) < 3.0 pb and (3)

𝜎(𝑐𝑔𝑡) × B (𝑡 → 𝑊 𝑏) × B (𝑊 → ℓ𝜈) < 4.7 pb, (4)

with B (𝑊 → ℓ𝜈) = 0.325 being the sum of branching ratios of all three leptonic decay modes of the 𝑊
boson. The expected cross-section-times-branching-ratio limits are 2.4 pb and 2.5 pb, respectively. The
observed limits are larger than the expected ones because non-zero signal yields are fitted.
The cross-section limits are interpreted within the TopFCNC model [14], which implements an effect-
ive operator formalism and is based on the FeynRules 2.0 framework [97] used inside the Mad-
Graph5_aMC@NLO event generator. With this set-up the cross-sections of the FCNC processes under
consideration were calculated at NLO in QCD, providing a significant improvement on LO calculations,
since NLO corrections for this class of processes were found to be between 30% and 80% [14].4 In the
TopFCNC model, the two operators O𝑢𝐺 𝑢𝑡 and O 𝑐𝑡 generate the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 and 𝑐𝑔𝑡 processes, and the coupling
𝑢𝐺
𝑢𝑡 and 𝐶 𝑐𝑡 divided by the square
strengths of the corresponding vertices are given by the two coefficients 𝐶𝑢𝐺 𝑢𝐺
of the new-physics scale Λ. The total cross-sections are found to be related to the EFT coefficients by
 𝑢𝑡 2
𝐶𝑢𝐺
𝜎(𝑢 + 𝑔 → 𝑡) = 2773 × pb TeV4 and (5)
Λ2
 𝑐𝑡 2
𝐶𝑢𝐺
𝜎(𝑐 + 𝑔 → 𝑡) = 719 × pb TeV4 . (6)
Λ2

Using Eqs. (5) and (6) the cross-section limits of Eqs. (3) and (4) become limits on the EFT coefficients:

|𝐶𝑢𝐺
𝑢𝑡 |
−2
|𝐶𝑢𝐺
𝑐𝑡 |
< 0.057 TeV and < 0.14 TeV−2 at the 95% CL. (7)
Λ2 Λ2

4 While MadGraph5_aMC@NLO can be used for a fixed-order calculation at NLO, events for which a matching to a
parton-shower program is needed can only be generated at LO in the current implementation.

24
Since the 𝑢-quark is a valence quark of the proton, it carries on average a much larger momentum fraction
than the 𝑐-quark, and thus the cross-section of the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 process is much larger than the cross-section of the
𝑐𝑔𝑡 process, when considering the same value of the corresponding coefficient (𝐶𝑢𝐺 𝑢𝑡 = 𝐶 𝑐𝑡 ). For a certain
𝑢𝐺
𝑢𝑡 is therefore higher than to 𝐶 𝑐𝑡 . However, in many of the
experimental sensitivity, the sensitivity to 𝐶𝑢𝐺 𝑢𝐺
models mentioned above the predicted values for 𝐶𝑢𝐺 𝑐𝑡 are higher than for 𝐶 𝑢𝑡 . For this reason, the reach
𝑢𝐺
for new physics is similar in the two cases. The limits presented in Eq. (7) tighten constraints set by the
CMS Collaboration using dilepton events recorded in Run 2 of the LHC [98] by more than a factor of three.
The CMS analysis searched for 𝑡𝑊 production cross-section via FCNC.
An alternative and very accessible way of comparing the upper limits on the EFT coefficient with previous
results uses the branching ratios of FCNC top-quark decays: B (𝑡 → 𝑢 + 𝑔) and B (𝑡 → 𝑐 + 𝑔). These
branching ratios are given as a function of the EFT coefficients by the relation
𝑞𝑡 2
!
𝐶𝑢𝐺
B (𝑡 → 𝑞 + 𝑔) = 0.0186 × TeV4 ,
Λ2

with 𝑞 = 𝑢, 𝑐 [99], assuming the top-quark width to be Γ𝑡 = 1.32 GeV. The resulting upper limits at the
95% CL are
B (𝑡 → 𝑢 + 𝑔) < 0.61 × 10−4 and B (𝑡 → 𝑐 + 𝑔) < 3.7 × 10−4 . (8)
These new bounds are approximately a factor of two more restrictive than the previous ATLAS results
obtained at a centre-of-mass energy of 8 TeV [12]. The bound on the 𝑐𝑔𝑡 mode is comparable to that of the
CMS analysis combining 7 and 8 TeV data [11], while the bound on the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 mode is significantly weaker
than the CMS one.

8.3 Comparison of expected upper limits

For assessing the sensitivity of this analysis and comparing it with the sensitivity of other results, and for
evaluating the impact of different groups of systematic uncertainties, the computation of expected upper
limits is more suitable than using the observed results, since biases caused by statistical fluctuations are
avoided and the signal contribution is set to zero. The expected limits were derived by using the expected
distributions of the NN discriminants, considering background processes only. The initially predicted rate
of the 𝑊+jets process was scaled by a factor of 𝜇(𝑊 + 𝑏) = 1.22 or 𝜇(𝑊 − 𝑏) = 1.30 for the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 analysis
and by a factor of 𝜇(𝑊 𝑏) = 1.18 for the 𝑐𝑔𝑡 analysis. These normalisation factors were obtained from
background-only fits to the observed NN discriminants in background-dominated regions, namely the
ranges 0.0 to 0.7 for the 𝐷 1 discriminant and 0.0 to 0.55 for the 𝐷 2 discriminant. The resulting expected
upper limits in terms of branching ratios are

B95 (𝑡 → 𝑢 + 𝑔) = 0.49 × 10−4 B95 (𝑡 → 𝑐 + 𝑔) = 2.0 × 10−4 .

exp exp
and (9)

Compared to the ATLAS analysis at 8 TeV centre-of-mass energy, significant improvements in sensitivity
are obtained for both the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 and 𝑐𝑔𝑡 analyses. The expected upper limits are lower than the observed
upper limits in Eq. (8), since non-zero, yet insignificant, signals are observed, while the expected limits are
obtained from expected distributions without any signal events included. The effect is larger for the 𝑐𝑔𝑡
analysis than for the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 analysis because the fitted signal event yield is more than three times larger in the
𝑐𝑔𝑡 case, as seen in Table 3.
In order to quantify the impact of different groups of systematic uncertainties, expected upper limits were
computed for different scenarios: (1) include only data statistical uncertainties, (2) include the experimental

25
Table 4: Impact of systematic uncertainties on the expected upper limits on the branching ratios of the FCNC decay
modes B (𝑡 → 𝑢 + 𝑔) and B (𝑡 → 𝑐 + 𝑔). Four scenarios are considered: (1) include only data statistical uncertainties,
(2) include the experimental systematic uncertainties in addition, (3) include all systematic uncertainties except for
the MC statistical uncertainties and (4) include all uncertainties.

exp exp
Scenario Description B95 (𝑡 → 𝑢 + 𝑔) B95 (𝑡 → 𝑐 + 𝑔)

(1) Data statistical only 1.1 × 10−5 2.4 × 10−5

(2) Experimental uncertainties also 3.1 × 10−5 12 × 10−5
(3) All uncertainties except MC statistical 3.9 × 10−5 18 × 10−5
(4) All uncertainties 4.9 × 10−5 20 × 10−5

systematic uncertainties in addition, (3) include all systematic uncertainties except for the MC statistical
uncertainties and (4) include all uncertainties. The last case leads to the limits quoted in Eq. (9). The results
of this study are reported in Table 4 and clearly demonstrate how large the impact of systematic uncertainties
is. Both the experimental and modelling uncertainties are relevant. MC statistical uncertainties increase
the expected upper limits by approximately 20% in the 𝑢𝑔𝑡 case and by about 10% for the 𝑐𝑔𝑡 process.

9 Conclusions

A search for the production of a single top quark via left-handed FCNC interactions of a top quark, a gluon
and an up or charm quark was performed. The analysis used the full LHC Run 2 proton–proton collision
data set recorded with the ATLAS detector at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, corresponding to an
integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 . Events with exactly one electron or muon, exactly one 𝑏-tagged jet
and missing transverse momentum were selected, resembling the decay products of a single top quark. A
dedicated high-purity working point was devised for the identification of 𝑏-jets, reducing the background
of 𝑊+𝑐-jets and 𝑊+light-flavour jets considerably. Neural networks were used to separate signal events
from background events, and a binned maximum-likelihood fit to the neural-network discriminants was
performed to search for a contribution from the 𝑢 + 𝑔 → 𝑡 and 𝑐 + 𝑔 → 𝑡 processes. The observed
distributions were found to be compatible with the background-only hypothesis and therefore upper limits
on the production cross-sections times branching ratios were derived, leading to

𝜎(𝑢𝑔𝑡) × B (𝑡 → 𝑊 𝑏) × B (𝑊 → ℓ𝜈) < 3.0 pb and

𝜎(𝑐𝑔𝑡) × B (𝑡 → 𝑊 𝑏) × B (𝑊 → ℓ𝜈) < 4.7 pb.

The cross-section limits were interpreted in the framework of an effective field theory, yielding limits on the
coefficients of the operators producing the FCNC processes under investigation: |𝐶𝑢𝐺 𝑢𝑡 |/Λ2 < 0.057 TeV−2
−2
and |𝐶𝑢𝐺 |/Λ < 0.14 TeV at the 95% confidence level. These limits are also expressed in terms of
𝑐𝑡 2

branching ratios of corresponding FCNC top-quark decays, resulting in

B (𝑡 → 𝑢 + 𝑔) < 0.61 × 10−4 and B (𝑡 → 𝑐 + 𝑔) < 3.7 × 10−4 .

The new bounds improve on previous ATLAS results obtained at a centre-of-mass energy of 8 TeV by
approximately a factor of two.

26
Acknowledgements

We thank CERN for the very successful operation of the LHC, as well as the support staff from our
institutions without whom ATLAS could not be operated efficiently.
We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWFW and
FWF, Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI,
Canada; CERN; ANID, Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC, China; Minciencias, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO
CR and VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF and DNSRC, Denmark; IN2P3-CNRS and CEA-DRF/IRFU,
France; SRNSFG, Georgia; BMBF, HGF and MPG, Germany; GSRI, Greece; RGC and Hong Kong SAR,
China; ISF and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Morocco; NWO,
Netherlands; RCN, Norway; MEiN, Poland; FCT, Portugal; MNE/IFA, Romania; JINR; MES of Russia and
NRC KI, Russian Federation; MESTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MIZŠ, Slovenia; DSI/NRF,
South Africa; MICINN, Spain; SRC and Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SERI, SNSF and Cantons
of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; MOST, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, United Kingdom; DOE and
NSF, United States of America. In addition, individual groups and members have received support from
BCKDF, CANARIE, Compute Canada and CRC, Canada; COST, ERC, ERDF, Horizon 2020 and Marie
Skłodowska-Curie Actions, European Union; Investissements d’Avenir Labex, Investissements d’Avenir
Idex and ANR, France; DFG and AvH Foundation, Germany; Herakleitos, Thales and Aristeia programmes
co-financed by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF, Greece; BSF-NSF and GIF, Israel; Norwegian Financial
Mechanism 2014-2021, Norway; NCN and NAWA, Poland; La Caixa Banking Foundation, CERCA
Programme Generalitat de Catalunya and PROMETEO and GenT Programmes Generalitat Valenciana,
Spain; Göran Gustafssons Stiftelse, Sweden; The Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom.
The crucial computing support from all WLCG partners is acknowledged gratefully, in particular from
CERN, the ATLAS Tier-1 facilities at TRIUMF (Canada), NDGF (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), CC-IN2P3
(France), KIT/GridKA (Germany), INFN-CNAF (Italy), NL-T1 (Netherlands), PIC (Spain), ASGC
(Taiwan), RAL (UK) and BNL (USA), the Tier-2 facilities worldwide and large non-WLCG resource
providers. Major contributors of computing resources are listed in Ref. [100].

References
[1] S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos and L. Maiani, Weak Interactions with Lepton-Hadron Symmetry,
Phys. Rev. D 2 (1970) 1285.
[2] CLEO Collaboration,
First Measurement of the Rate for the Inclusive Radiative Penguin Decay 𝑏 → 𝑠𝛾,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 2885.
[3] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra,
Top flavour-changing neutral interactions: theoretical expectations and experimental detection,
Acta Phys. Polon. B 35 (2004) 2695, arXiv: hep-ph/0409342 [hep-ph].
[4] D. Atwood, L. Reina and A. Soni,
Phenomenology of two Higgs doublet models with flavor-changing neutral currents,
Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 3156, arXiv: hep-ph/9609279 [hep-ph].

27
 [5] S. Bejar, J. Guasch and J. Sola, Loop induced flavor changing neutral decays of the top quark in a
general two-Higgs-doublet model, Nucl. Phys. B 600 (2001) 21,
arXiv: hep-ph/0011091 [hep-ph].
[6] D. Delepine and S. Khalil, Top flavour violating decays in general supersymmetric models,
Phys. Lett. B 599 (2004) 62, arXiv: hep-ph/0406264 [hep-ph].
[7] J. J. Cao et al., Supersymmetry-induced flavor-changing neutral-current top-quark processes at the
CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 075021,
arXiv: hep-ph/0702264 [hep-ph].
[8] J.-L. Yang, T.-F. Feng, H.-B. Zhang, G.-Z. Ning and X.-Y. Yang,
Top quark decays with flavor violation in the B-LSSM, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 438,
arXiv: 1806.01476 [hep-ph].
[9] D0 Collaboration, Search for flavor changing neutral currents via quark–gluon couplings in single
top quark production using 2.3 fb−1 of 𝑝 𝑝¯ collisions, Phys. Lett. B 693 (2010) 81,
arXiv: 1006.3575 [hep-ex].
[10] CDF II Collaboration,
Search for top-quark production via flavor-changing neutral currents in W+1 jet events at CDF,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 151801, arXiv: 0812.3400 [hep-ex].
[11] CMS Collaboration, Search for anomalous Wtb couplings and flavour-changing neutral currents in
√
t-channel single top quark production in pp collisions at 𝑠 = 7 and 8 TeV, JHEP 02 (2017) 028,
arXiv: 1610.03545 [hep-ex].
[12] ATLAS Collaboration, Search for single top-quark production via flavour-changing neutral
currents at 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 55,
arXiv: 1509.00294 [hep-ex], [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C XX (2021) XX].
[13] ATLAS Collaboration,
√
Search for FCNC single top-quark production at 𝑠 = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector,
Phys. Lett. B 712 (2012) 351, arXiv: 1203.0529 [hep-ex].
[14] C. Degrande, F. Maltoni, J. Wang and C. Zhang, Automatic computations at next-to-leading order
in QCD for top-quark flavor-changing neutral processes, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 034024,
arXiv: 1412.5594 [hep-ph].
[15] ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,
JINST 3 (2008) S08003.
[16] ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Insertable B-Layer Technical Design Report,
ATLAS-TDR-19; CERN-LHCC-2010-013, 2010,
url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1291633, Addendum: ATLAS-TDR-19-ADD-1;
CERN-LHCC-2012-009, 2012, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1451888.
[17] B. Abbott et al., Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer,
JINST 13 (2018) T05008, arXiv: 1803.00844 [physics.ins-det].
[18] ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS trigger system in 2015,
Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 317, arXiv: 1611.09661 [hep-ex].
[19] ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Collaboration Software and Firmware,
ATL-SOFT-PUB-2021-001, 2021, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2767187.

28
[20] ATLAS Collaboration,
ATLAS data quality operations and performance for 2015–2018 data-taking,
JINST 15 (2020) P04003, arXiv: 1911.04632 [physics.ins-det].
[21] ATLAS Collaboration,
√
Luminosity determination in 𝑝 𝑝 collisions at 𝑠 = 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC,
ATLAS-CONF-2019-021, 2019, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2677054.
[22] ATLAS Collaboration,
The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS,
JINST 13 (2018) P07017.
[23] ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of electron and photon triggers in ATLAS during LHC Run 2,
Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 47, arXiv: 1909.00761 [hep-ex].
[24] ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS muon triggers in Run 2,
JINST 15 (2020) P09015, arXiv: 2004.13447 [hep-ex].
[25] GEANT4 Collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al., Geant4 – a simulation toolkit,
Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250.
[26] ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Simulation Infrastructure, Eur. Phys. J. C 70 (2010) 823,
arXiv: 1005.4568 [physics.ins-det].
[27] ATLAS Collaboration,
The simulation principle and performance of the ATLAS fast calorimeter simulation FastCaloSim,
ATL-PHYS-PUB-2010-013, 2010, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1300517.
[28] ATLAS Collaboration, Fast Simulation for ATLAS: Atlfast-II and ISF,
ATL-SOFT-PROC-2012-065, 2012, url: http://cds.cern.ch/record/1458503.
[29] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna and P. Skands, A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,
Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852, arXiv: 0710.3820 [hep-ph].
[30] ATLAS Collaboration, The Pythia 8 A3 tune description of ATLAS minimum bias and inelastic
measurements incorporating the Donnachie–Landshoff diffractive model,
ATL-PHYS-PUB-2016-017, 2016, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2206965.
[31] R. D. Ball et al., Parton distributions with LHC data, Nucl. Phys. B 867 (2013) 244,
arXiv: 1207.1303 [hep-ph].
[32] R. Coimbra, A. Onofre, R. Santos and M. Won,
MEtop – a generator for single top production via FCNC interactions,
Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2222, arXiv: 1207.7026 [hep-ph].
[33] R. Guedes, R. Santos and M. Won,
Limits on strong flavor changing neutral current top couplings at the LHC,
Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 114011, arXiv: 1308.4723 [hep-ph].
[34] S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski and B. R. Webber, Angular correlations of lepton pairs from
vector boson and top quark decays in Monte Carlo simulations, JHEP 04 (2007) 081,
arXiv: hep-ph/0702198.
[35] P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer and R. Rietkerk,
Automatic spin-entangled decays of heavy resonances in Monte Carlo simulations,
JHEP 03 (2013) 015, arXiv: 1212.3460 [hep-ph].

29
[36] J. Gao et al., CT10 next-to-next-to-leading order global analysis of QCD,
Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 033009, arXiv: 1302.6246 [hep-ph].
[37] T. Sjöstrand et al., An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159,
arXiv: 1410.3012 [hep-ph].
[38] ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to 7 TeV data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021, 2014,
url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1966419.
[39] M. Bähr et al., Herwig++ physics and manual, Eur. Phys. J. C 58 (2008) 639,
arXiv: 0803.0883 [hep-ph].
[40] J. Bellm et al., Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 196,
arXiv: 1512.01178 [hep-ph].
[41] P. Nason, A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms,
JHEP 11 (2004) 040, arXiv: hep-ph/0409146.
[42] S. Frixione, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi,
A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction,
JHEP 09 (2007) 126, arXiv: 0707.3088 [hep-ph].
[43] S. Frixione, P. Nason and C. Oleari,
Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method,
JHEP 11 (2007) 070, arXiv: 0709.2092 [hep-ph].
[44] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari and E. Re,
NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG: 𝑠- and 𝑡-channel contributions,
JHEP 09 (2009) 111, arXiv: 0907.4076 [hep-ph], Erratum: JHEP 02 (2010) 011.
[45] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari and E. Re, A general framework for implementing NLO calculations
in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX, JHEP 06 (2010) 043,
arXiv: 1002.2581 [hep-ph].
[46] E. Re,
Single-top 𝑊𝑡-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method,
Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1547, arXiv: 1009.2450 [hep-ph].
[47] R. Frederix, E. Re and P. Torrielli,
Single-top 𝑡-channel hadroproduction in the four-flavour scheme with POWHEG and aMC@NLO,
JHEP 09 (2012) 130, arXiv: 1207.5391 [hep-ph].
[48] R. D. Ball et al., Parton distributions for the LHC run II, JHEP 04 (2015) 040,
arXiv: 1410.8849 [hep-ph].
[49] ATLAS Collaboration, Studies on top-quark Monte Carlo modelling for Top2016,
ATL-PHYS-PUB-2016-020, 2016, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2216168.
[50] S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski, C. White and B. R. Webber,
Single-top hadroproduction in association with a 𝑊 boson, JHEP 07 (2008) 029,
arXiv: 0805.3067 [hep-ph].
[51] D. J. Lange, The EvtGen particle decay simulation package,
Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 462 (2001) 152.
[52] M. Czakon and A. Mitov,
Top++: A program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders,
Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 2930, arXiv: 1112.5675 [hep-ph].

30
[53] M. Aliev et al., HATHOR – HAdronic Top and Heavy quarks crOss section calculatoR,
Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 1034, arXiv: 1007.1327 [hep-ph].
[54] P. Kant et al., HatHor for single top-quark production: Updated predictions and uncertainty
estimates for single top-quark production in hadronic collisions,
Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 74, arXiv: 1406.4403 [hep-ph].
[55] N. Kidonakis,
Two-loop soft anomalous dimensions for single top quark associated production with a 𝑊 − or 𝐻 − ,
Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 054018, arXiv: 1005.4451 [hep-ph].
[56] N. Kidonakis, ‘Top Quark Production’, Proceedings, Helmholtz International Summer School on
Physics of Heavy Quarks and Hadrons (HQ 2013) (JINR, Dubna, Russia, 15th–28th July 2013)
139, arXiv: 1311.0283 [hep-ph].
[57] E. Bothmann et al., Event generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys. 7 (2019) 034,
arXiv: 1905.09127 [hep-ph].
[58] T. Gleisberg and S. Höche, Comix, a new matrix element generator, JHEP 12 (2008) 039,
arXiv: 0808.3674 [hep-ph].
[59] F. Buccioni et al., OpenLoops 2, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 866, arXiv: 1907.13071 [hep-ph].
[60] F. Cascioli, P. Maierhöfer and S. Pozzorini, Scattering Amplitudes with Open Loops,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 111601, arXiv: 1111.5206 [hep-ph].
[61] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and L. Hofer,
Collier: A fortran-based complex one-loop library in extended regularizations,
Comput. Phys. Commun. 212 (2017) 220, arXiv: 1604.06792 [hep-ph].
[62] S. Schumann and F. Krauss,
A parton shower algorithm based on Catani–Seymour dipole factorisation, JHEP 03 (2008) 038,
arXiv: 0709.1027 [hep-ph].
[63] J.-C. Winter, F. Krauss and G. Soff, A modified cluster-hadronization model,
Eur. Phys. J. C 36 (2004) 381, arXiv: hep-ph/0311085.
[64] S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr and F. Siegert,
A critical appraisal of NLO+PS matching methods, JHEP 09 (2012) 049,
arXiv: 1111.1220 [hep-ph].
[65] S. Catani, F. Krauss, B. R. Webber and R. Kuhn, QCD Matrix Elements + Parton Showers,
JHEP 11 (2001) 063, arXiv: hep-ph/0109231.
[66] S. Höche, F. Krauss, S. Schumann and F. Siegert, QCD matrix elements and truncated showers,
JHEP 05 (2009) 053, arXiv: 0903.1219 [hep-ph].
[67] S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr and F. Siegert,
QCD matrix elements + parton showers. The NLO case, JHEP 04 (2013) 027,
arXiv: 1207.5030 [hep-ph].
[68] C. Anastasiou, L. J. Dixon, K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, High precision QCD at hadron colliders:
Electroweak gauge boson rapidity distributions at next-to-next-to leading order,
Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 094008, arXiv: hep-ph/0312266.
[69] R. Gavin, Y. Li, F. Petriello and S. Quackenbush,
FEWZ 2.0: A code for hadronic Z production at next-to-next-to-leading order,
Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 2388.

31
 √
[70] ATLAS Collaboration, Vertex Reconstruction Performance of the ATLAS Detector at 𝑠 = 13 TeV,
ATL-PHYS-PUB-2015-026, 2015, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2037717.
[71] ATLAS Collaboration, Electron and photon performance measurements with the ATLAS detector
using the 2015–2017 LHC proton–proton collision data, JINST 14 (2019) P12006,
arXiv: 1908.00005 [hep-ex].
[72] ATLAS Collaboration, Muon reconstruction and identification efficiency in ATLAS using the full
√
Run 2 𝑝 𝑝 collision data set at 𝑠 = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 578,
arXiv: 2012.00578 [hep-ex].
[73] ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS muon triggers in Run 2,
JINST 15 (2020) P09015, arXiv: 2004.13447 [hep-ex].
[74] ATLAS Collaboration, Properties of jets and inputs to jet reconstruction and calibration with the
√
ATLAS detector using proton–proton collisions at 𝑠 = 13 TeV, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2015-036, 2015,
url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2044564.
[75] ATLAS Collaboration,
Topological cell clustering in the ATLAS calorimeters and its performance in LHC Run 1,
Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 490, arXiv: 1603.02934 [hep-ex].
[76] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, The anti-𝑘 𝑡 jet clustering algorithm, JHEP 04 (2008) 063,
arXiv: 0802.1189 [hep-ph].
[77] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, FastJet user manual, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896,
arXiv: 1111.6097 [hep-ph].
[78] ATLAS Collaboration, Jet energy scale measurements and their systematic uncertainties in
√
proton–proton collisions at 𝑠 = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 072002,
arXiv: 1703.09665 [hep-ex].
[79] ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of pile-up mitigation techniques for jets in 𝑝 𝑝 collisions at
√
𝑠 = 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 581,
arXiv: 1510.03823 [hep-ex].
[80] ATLAS Collaboration,
Identification and rejection of pile-up jets at high pseudorapidity with the ATLAS detector,
Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 580, arXiv: 1705.02211 [hep-ex],
Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 712.
[81] ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS 𝑏-jet identification performance and efficiency measurement with 𝑡 𝑡¯
√
events in 𝑝 𝑝 collisions at 𝑠 = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 970,
arXiv: 1907.05120 [hep-ex].
[82] ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of 𝑏-jet identification in the ATLAS experiment,
JINST 11 (2016) P04008, arXiv: 1512.01094 [hep-ex].
[83] ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction with the
√
ATLAS detector using proton–proton collisions at 𝑠 = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 903,
arXiv: 1802.08168 [hep-ex].
[84] ATLAS Collaboration, Estimation of non-prompt and fake lepton backgrounds in final states with
√
top quarks produced in proton–proton collisions at 𝑠 = 8 TeV with the ATLAS Detector,
ATLAS-CONF-2014-058, 2014, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1951336.

32
 [85] M. Feindt, A Neural Bayesian Estimator for Conditional Probability Densities, 2004,
arXiv: physics/0402093 [physics.data-an].
[86] M. Feindt and U. Kerzel, The NeuroBayes Neural Network Package,
Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 559 (2006) 190.
[87] ATLAS Collaboration,
√
Jet energy measurement with the ATLAS detector in proton–proton collisions at 𝑠 = 7 TeV,
Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2304, arXiv: 1112.6426 [hep-ex].
[88] E. Bothmann, M. Schönherr and S. Schumann,
Reweighting QCD matrix-element and parton-shower calculations, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 590,
arXiv: 1606.08753 [hep-ph].
[89] L. Harland-Lang, A. Martin, P. Motylinski and R. Thorne,
Parton distributions in the LHC era: MMHT 2014 PDFs, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 204,
arXiv: 1412.3989 [hep-ph].
[90] J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer, MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond,
JHEP 06 (2011) 128, arXiv: 1106.0522 [hep-ph].
[91] J. Butterworth et al., PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II, J. Phys. G 43 (2016) 023001,
arXiv: 1510.03865 [hep-ph].
[92] R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston, Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples,
Comput. Phys. Commun. 77 (1993) 219.
[93] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurements of the production cross-section for a 𝑍 boson in association
√
with 𝑏-jets in proton–proton collisions at 𝑠 = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,
JHEP 07 (2020) 044, arXiv: 2003.11960 [hep-ex].
[94] A. L. Read, Presentation of search results: the CL s technique, J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693,
url: http://stacks.iop.org/0954-3899/28/i=10/a=313.
[95] T. Junk, Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics,
Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 434 (1999) 435, issn: 0168-9002,
url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168900299004982.
[96] W. Verkerke and D. Kirkby, The RooFit toolkit for data modeling, 2003,
arXiv: physics/0306116 [physics.data-an].
[97] A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks,
FeynRules 2.0 – A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,
Computer Physics Communications 185 (2014) 2250, issn: 0010-4655,
url: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010465514001350.
[98] CMS Collaboration, Search for new physics in top quark production in dilepton final states in
√
proton-proton collisions at 𝑠 = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 886,
arXiv: 1903.11144 [hep-ex].
[99] G. Durieux, F. Maltoni and C. Zhang, Global approach to top-quark flavor-changing interactions,
Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 074017, arXiv: 1412.7166 [hep-ph].
[100] ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Computing Acknowledgements, ATL-SOFT-PUB-2021-003,
url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2776662.

33
The ATLAS Collaboration

G. Aad98 , B. Abbott124 , D.C. Abbott99 , A. Abed Abud34 , K. Abeling51 , D.K. Abhayasinghe91 ,

S.H. Abidi27 , A. Aboulhorma33e , H. Abramowicz157 , H. Abreu156 , Y. Abulaiti5 ,
A.C. Abusleme Hoffman142a , B.S. Acharya64a,64b,o , B. Achkar51 , L. Adam96 , C. Adam Bourdarios4 ,
L. Adamczyk81a , L. Adamek162 , S.V. Addepalli24 , J. Adelman116 , A. Adiguzel11c,ac , S. Adorni52 ,
T. Adye139 , A.A. Affolder141 , Y. Afik34 , C. Agapopoulou62 , M.N. Agaras12 , J. Agarwala68a,68b ,
A. Aggarwal114 , C. Agheorghiesei25c , J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra135f,135a,ab , A. Ahmad34 , F. Ahmadov77 ,
W.S. Ahmed100 , X. Ai44 , G. Aielli71a,71b , I. Aizenberg175 , S. Akatsuka83 , M. Akbiyik96 , T.P.A. Åkesson94 ,
A.V. Akimov107 , K. Al Khoury37 , G.L. Alberghi21b , J. Albert171 , P. Albicocco49 , M.J. Alconada Verzini86 ,
S. Alderweireldt48 , M. Aleksa34 , I.N. Aleksandrov77 , C. Alexa25b , T. Alexopoulos9 , A. Alfonsi115 ,
F. Alfonsi21b , M. Alhroob124 , B. Ali137 , S. Ali154 , M. Aliev161 , G. Alimonti66a , C. Allaire34 ,
B.M.M. Allbrooke152 , P.P. Allport19 , A. Aloisio67a,67b , F. Alonso86 , C. Alpigiani144 ,
E. Alunno Camelia71a,71b , M. Alvarez Estevez95 , M.G. Alviggi67a,67b , Y. Amaral Coutinho78b ,
A. Ambler100 , L. Ambroz130 , C. Amelung34 , D. Amidei102 , S.P. Amor Dos Santos135a , S. Amoroso44 ,
K.R. Amos169 , C.S. Amrouche52 , V. Ananiev129 , C. Anastopoulos145 , N. Andari140 , T. Andeen10 ,
J.K. Anders18 , S.Y. Andrean43a,43b , A. Andreazza66a,66b , S. Angelidakis8 , A. Angerami37 ,
A.V. Anisenkov117b,117a , A. Annovi69a , C. Antel52 , M.T. Anthony145 , E. Antipov125 , M. Antonelli49 ,
D.J.A. Antrim16 , F. Anulli70a , M. Aoki79 , J.A. Aparisi Pozo169 , M.A. Aparo152 , L. Aperio Bella44 ,
N. Aranzabal34 , V. Araujo Ferraz78a , C. Arcangeletti49 , A.T.H. Arce47 , E. Arena88 , J-F. Arguin106 ,
S. Argyropoulos50 , J.-H. Arling44 , A.J. Armbruster34 , A. Armstrong166 , O. Arnaez162 , H. Arnold34 ,
Z.P. Arrubarrena Tame110 , G. Artoni130 , H. Asada112 , K. Asai122 , S. Asai159 , N.A. Asbah57 ,
E.M. Asimakopoulou167 , L. Asquith152 , J. Assahsah33d , K. Assamagan27 , R. Astalos26a , R.J. Atkin31a ,
M. Atkinson168 , N.B. Atlay17 , H. Atmani58b , P.A. Atmasiddha102 , K. Augsten137 , S. Auricchio67a,67b ,
V.A. Austrup177 , G. Avner156 , G. Avolio34 , M.K. Ayoub13c , G. Azuelos106,ai , D. Babal26a , H. Bachacou140 ,
K. Bachas158 , A. Bachiu32 , F. Backman43a,43b , A. Badea57 , P. Bagnaia70a,70b , H. Bahrasemani148 ,
A.J. Bailey169 , V.R. Bailey168 , J.T. Baines139 , C. Bakalis9 , O.K. Baker178 , P.J. Bakker115 , E. Bakos14 ,
D. Bakshi Gupta7 , S. Balaji153 , R. Balasubramanian115 , E.M. Baldin117b,117a , P. Balek138 ,
E. Ballabene66a,66b , F. Balli140 , L.M. Baltes59a , W.K. Balunas130 , J. Balz96 , E. Banas82 ,
M. Bandieramonte134 , A. Bandyopadhyay22 , S. Bansal22 , L. Barak157 , E.L. Barberio101 , D. Barberis53b,53a ,
M. Barbero98 , G. Barbour92 , K.N. Barends31a , T. Barillari111 , M-S. Barisits34 , J. Barkeloo127 ,
T. Barklow149 , B.M. Barnett139 , R.M. Barnett16 , A. Baroncelli58a , G. Barone27 , A.J. Barr130 ,
L. Barranco Navarro43a,43b , F. Barreiro95 , J. Barreiro Guimarães da Costa13a , U. Barron157 , S. Barsov133 ,
F. Bartels59a , R. Bartoldus149 , G. Bartolini98 , A.E. Barton87 , P. Bartos26a , A. Basalaev44 , A. Basan96 ,
M. Baselga44 , I. Bashta72a,72b , A. Bassalat62 , M.J. Basso162 , C.R. Basson97 , R.L. Bates55 , S. Batlamous33e ,
J.R. Batley30 , B. Batool147 , M. Battaglia141 , M. Bauce70a,70b , F. Bauer140,* , P. Bauer22 , H.S. Bawa29 ,
A. Bayirli11c , J.B. Beacham47 , T. Beau131 , P.H. Beauchemin165 , F. Becherer50 , P. Bechtle22 , H.P. Beck18,q ,
K. Becker173 , C. Becot44 , A.J. Beddall11a , V.A. Bednyakov77 , C.P. Bee151 , T.A. Beermann34 , M. Begalli78b ,
M. Begel27 , A. Behera151 , J.K. Behr44 , C. Beirao Da Cruz E Silva34 , J.F. Beirer51,34 , F. Beisiegel22 ,
M. Belfkir4 , G. Bella157 , L. Bellagamba21b , A. Bellerive32 , P. Bellos19 , K. Beloborodov117b,117a ,
K. Belotskiy108 , N.L. Belyaev108 , D. Benchekroun33a , Y. Benhammou157 , D.P. Benjamin27 , M. Benoit27 ,
J.R. Bensinger24 , S. Bentvelsen115 , L. Beresford34 , M. Beretta49 , D. Berge17 , E. Bergeaas Kuutmann167 ,
N. Berger4 , B. Bergmann137 , L.J. Bergsten24 , J. Beringer16 , S. Berlendis6 , G. Bernardi131 , C. Bernius149 ,
F.U. Bernlochner22 , T. Berry91 , P. Berta138 , A. Berthold46 , I.A. Bertram87 , O. Bessidskaia Bylund177 ,
S. Bethke111 , A. Betti40 , A.J. Bevan90 , S. Bhatta151 , D.S. Bhattacharya172 , P. Bhattarai24 , V.S. Bhopatkar5 ,
R. Bi134 , R.M. Bianchi134 , O. Biebel110 , R. Bielski127 , N.V. Biesuz69a,69b , M. Biglietti72a ,

34
T.R.V. Billoud137 , M. Bindi51 , A. Bingul11d , C. Bini70a,70b , S. Biondi21b,21a , A. Biondini88 ,
C.J. Birch-sykes97 , G.A. Bird19,139 , M. Birman175 , T. Bisanz34 , J.P. Biswal2 , D. Biswas176,j , A. Bitadze97 ,
C. Bittrich46 , K. Bjørke129 , I. Bloch44 , C. Blocker24 , A. Blue55 , U. Blumenschein90 , J. Blumenthal96 ,
G.J. Bobbink115 , V.S. Bobrovnikov117b,117a , M. Boehler50 , D. Bogavac12 , A.G. Bogdanchikov117b,117a ,
C. Bohm43a , V. Boisvert91 , P. Bokan44 , T. Bold81a , M. Bomben131 , M. Bona90 , M. Boonekamp140 ,
C.D. Booth91 , A.G. Borbély55 , H.M. Borecka-Bielska106 , L.S. Borgna92 , G. Borissov87 , D. Bortoletto130 ,
D. Boscherini21b , M. Bosman12 , J.D. Bossio Sola34 , K. Bouaouda33a , J. Boudreau134 ,
E.V. Bouhova-Thacker87 , D. Boumediene36 , R. Bouquet131 , A. Boveia123 , J. Boyd34 , D. Boye27 ,
I.R. Boyko77 , A.J. Bozson91 , J. Bracinik19 , N. Brahimi58d,58c , G. Brandt177 , O. Brandt30 , F. Braren44 ,
B. Brau99 , J.E. Brau127 , W.D. Breaden Madden55 , K. Brendlinger44 , R. Brener175 , L. Brenner34 ,
R. Brenner167 , S. Bressler175 , B. Brickwedde96 , D.L. Briglin19 , D. Britton55 , D. Britzger111 , I. Brock22 ,
R. Brock103 , G. Brooijmans37 , W.K. Brooks142e , E. Brost27 , P.A. Bruckman de Renstrom82 , B. Brüers44 ,
D. Bruncko26b , A. Bruni21b , G. Bruni21b , M. Bruschi21b , N. Bruscino70a,70b , L. Bryngemark149 ,
T. Buanes15 , Q. Buat151 , P. Buchholz147 , A.G. Buckley55 , I.A. Budagov77 , M.K. Bugge129 , O. Bulekov108 ,
B.A. Bullard57 , S. Burdin88 , C.D. Burgard44 , A.M. Burger125 , B. Burghgrave7 , J.T.P. Burr44 ,
C.D. Burton10 , J.C. Burzynski148 , E.L. Busch37 , V. Büscher96 , P.J. Bussey55 , J.M. Butler23 , C.M. Buttar55 ,
J.M. Butterworth92 , W. Buttinger139 , C.J. Buxo Vazquez103 , A.R. Buzykaev117b,117a , G. Cabras21b ,
S. Cabrera Urbán169 , D. Caforio54 , H. Cai134 , V.M.M. Cairo149 , O. Cakir3a , N. Calace34 , P. Calafiura16 ,
G. Calderini131 , P. Calfayan63 , G. Callea55 , L.P. Caloba78b , D. Calvet36 , S. Calvet36 , T.P. Calvet98 ,
M. Calvetti69a,69b , R. Camacho Toro131 , S. Camarda34 , D. Camarero Munoz95 , P. Camarri71a,71b ,
M.T. Camerlingo72a,72b , D. Cameron129 , C. Camincher171 , M. Campanelli92 , A. Camplani38 ,
V. Canale67a,67b , A. Canesse100 , M. Cano Bret75 , J. Cantero125 , Y. Cao168 , F. Capocasa24 , M. Capua39b,39a ,
A. Carbone66a,66b , R. Cardarelli71a , J.C.J. Cardenas7 , F. Cardillo169 , G. Carducci39b,39a , T. Carli34 ,
G. Carlino67a , B.T. Carlson134 , E.M. Carlson171,163a , L. Carminati66a,66b , M. Carnesale70a,70b ,
R.M.D. Carney149 , S. Caron114 , E. Carquin142e , S. Carrá44 , G. Carratta21b,21a , J.W.S. Carter162 ,
T.M. Carter48 , D. Casadei31c , M.P. Casado12,g , A.F. Casha162 , E.G. Castiglia178 , F.L. Castillo59a ,
L. Castillo Garcia12 , V. Castillo Gimenez169 , N.F. Castro135a,135e , A. Catinaccio34 , J.R. Catmore129 ,
A. Cattai34 , V. Cavaliere27 , N. Cavalli21b,21a , V. Cavasinni69a,69b , E. Celebi11b , F. Celli130 ,
M.S. Centonze65a,65b , K. Cerny126 , A.S. Cerqueira78a , A. Cerri152 , L. Cerrito71a,71b , F. Cerutti16 ,
A. Cervelli21b , S.A. Cetin11b , Z. Chadi33a , D. Chakraborty116 , M. Chala135f , J. Chan176 , W.S. Chan115 ,
W.Y. Chan88 , J.D. Chapman30 , B. Chargeishvili155b , D.G. Charlton19 , T.P. Charman90 , M. Chatterjee18 ,
S. Chekanov5 , S.V. Chekulaev163a , G.A. Chelkov77,ae , A. Chen102 , B. Chen157 , B. Chen171 , C. Chen58a ,
C.H. Chen76 , H. Chen13c , H. Chen27 , J. Chen58c , J. Chen24 , S. Chen132 , S.J. Chen13c , X. Chen58c ,
X. Chen13b , Y. Chen58a , Y-H. Chen44 , C.L. Cheng176 , H.C. Cheng60a , A. Cheplakov77 ,
E. Cheremushkina44 , E. Cherepanova77 , R. Cherkaoui El Moursli33e , E. Cheu6 , K. Cheung61 ,
L. Chevalier140 , V. Chiarella49 , G. Chiarelli69a , G. Chiodini65a , A.S. Chisholm19 , A. Chitan25b ,
Y.H. Chiu171 , M.V. Chizhov77,s , K. Choi10 , A.R. Chomont70a,70b , Y. Chou99 , Y.S. Chow115 ,
T. Chowdhury31f , L.D. Christopher31f , M.C. Chu60a , X. Chu13a,13d , J. Chudoba136 , J.J. Chwastowski82 ,
D. Cieri111 , K.M. Ciesla82 , V. Cindro89 , I.A. Cioară25b , A. Ciocio16 , F. Cirotto67a,67b , Z.H. Citron175,k ,
M. Citterio66a , D.A. Ciubotaru25b , B.M. Ciungu162 , A. Clark52 , P.J. Clark48 , J.M. Clavijo Columbie44 ,
S.E. Clawson97 , C. Clement43a,43b , L. Clissa21b,21a , Y. Coadou98 , M. Cobal64a,64c , A. Coccaro53b ,
J. Cochran76 , R.F. Coelho Barrue135a , R. Coelho Lopes De Sa99 , S. Coelli66a , H. Cohen157 ,
A.E.C. Coimbra34 , B. Cole37 , J. Collot56 , P. Conde Muiño135a,135g , S.H. Connell31c , I.A. Connelly55 ,
E.I. Conroy130 , F. Conventi67a,aj , H.G. Cooke19 , A.M. Cooper-Sarkar130 , F. Cormier170 , L.D. Corpe34 ,
M. Corradi70a,70b , E.E. Corrigan94 , F. Corriveau100,y , M.J. Costa169 , F. Costanza4 , D. Costanzo145 ,
B.M. Cote123 , G. Cowan91 , J.W. Cowley30 , K. Cranmer121 , S. Crépé-Renaudin56 , F. Crescioli131 ,
M. Cristinziani147 , M. Cristoforetti73a,73b,b , V. Croft165 , G. Crosetti39b,39a , A. Cueto34 ,

35
T. Cuhadar Donszelmann166 , H. Cui13a,13d , A.R. Cukierman149 , W.R. Cunningham55 , F. Curcio39b,39a ,
P. Czodrowski34 , M.M. Czurylo59b , M.J. Da Cunha Sargedas De Sousa58a , J.V. Da Fonseca Pinto78b ,
C. Da Via97 , W. Dabrowski81a , T. Dado45 , S. Dahbi31f , T. Dai102 , C. Dallapiccola99 , M. Dam38 ,
G. D’amen27 , V. D’Amico72a,72b , J. Damp96 , J.R. Dandoy132 , M.F. Daneri28 , M. Danninger148 , V. Dao34 ,
G. Darbo53b , S. Darmora5 , A. Dattagupta127 , S. D’Auria66a,66b , C. David163b , T. Davidek138 , D.R. Davis47 ,
B. Davis-Purcell32 , I. Dawson90 , K. De7 , R. De Asmundis67a , M. De Beurs115 , S. De Castro21b,21a ,
N. De Groot114 , P. de Jong115 , H. De la Torre103 , A. De Maria13c , D. De Pedis70a , A. De Salvo70a ,
U. De Sanctis71a,71b , M. De Santis71a,71b , A. De Santo152 , J.B. De Vivie De Regie56 , D.V. Dedovich77 ,
J. Degens115 , A.M. Deiana40 , J. Del Peso95 , Y. Delabat Diaz44 , F. Deliot140 , C.M. Delitzsch6 ,
M. Della Pietra67a,67b , D. Della Volpe52 , A. Dell’Acqua34 , L. Dell’Asta66a,66b , M. Delmastro4 ,
P.A. Delsart56 , S. Demers178 , M. Demichev77 , S.P. Denisov118 , L. D’Eramo116 , D. Derendarz82 ,
J.E. Derkaoui33d , F. Derue131 , P. Dervan88 , K. Desch22 , K. Dette162 , C. Deutsch22 , P.O. Deviveiros34 ,
F.A. Di Bello70a,70b , A. Di Ciaccio71a,71b , L. Di Ciaccio4 , A. Di Domenico70a,70b , C. Di Donato67a,67b ,
A. Di Girolamo34 , G. Di Gregorio69a,69b , A. Di Luca73a,73b , B. Di Micco72a,72b , R. Di Nardo72a,72b ,
C. Diaconu98 , F.A. Dias115 , T. Dias Do Vale135a , M.A. Diaz142a , F.G. Diaz Capriles22 , J. Dickinson16 ,
M. Didenko169 , E.B. Diehl102 , J. Dietrich17 , S. Díez Cornell44 , C. Diez Pardos147 , A. Dimitrievska16 ,
W. Ding13b , J. Dingfelder22 , I-M. Dinu25b , S.J. Dittmeier59b , F. Dittus34 , F. Djama98 , T. Djobava155b ,
J.I. Djuvsland15 , M.A.B. Do Vale143 , D. Dodsworth24 , C. Doglioni94 , J. Dolejsi138 , Z. Dolezal138 ,
M. Donadelli78c , B. Dong58c , J. Donini36 , A. D’onofrio13c , M. D’Onofrio88 , J. Dopke139 , A. Doria67a ,
M.T. Dova86 , A.T. Doyle55 , E. Drechsler148 , E. Dreyer148 , T. Dreyer51 , A.S. Drobac165 , D. Du58a ,
T.A. du Pree115 , F. Dubinin107 , M. Dubovsky26a , A. Dubreuil52 , E. Duchovni175 , G. Duckeck110 ,
O.A. Ducu34,25b , D. Duda111 , A. Dudarev34 , M. D’uffizi97 , L. Duflot62 , M. Dührssen34 , C. Dülsen177 ,
A.E. Dumitriu25b , M. Dunford59a , S. Dungs45 , K. Dunne43a,43b , A. Duperrin98 , H. Duran Yildiz3a ,
M. Düren54 , A. Durglishvili155b , B. Dutta44 , G.I. Dyckes16 , M. Dyndal81a , S. Dysch97 , B.S. Dziedzic82 ,
B. Eckerova26a , M.G. Eggleston47 , E. Egidio Purcino De Souza78b , L.F. Ehrke52 , T. Eifert7 , G. Eigen15 ,
K. Einsweiler16 , T. Ekelof167 , Y. El Ghazali33b , H. El Jarrari33e , A. El Moussaouy33a , V. Ellajosyula167 ,
M. Ellert167 , F. Ellinghaus177 , A.A. Elliot90 , N. Ellis34 , J. Elmsheuser27 , M. Elsing34 , D. Emeliyanov139 ,
A. Emerman37 , Y. Enari159 , J. Erdmann45 , A. Ereditato18 , P.A. Erland82 , M. Errenst177 , M. Escalier62 ,
C. Escobar169 , O. Estrada Pastor169 , E. Etzion157 , G. Evans135a , H. Evans63 , M.O. Evans152 , A. Ezhilov133 ,
F. Fabbri55 , L. Fabbri21b,21a , G. Facini173 , V. Fadeyev141 , R.M. Fakhrutdinov118 , S. Falciano70a ,
P.J. Falke22 , S. Falke34 , J. Faltova138 , Y. Fan13a , Y. Fang13a , G. Fanourakis42 , M. Fanti66a,66b , M. Faraj58c ,
A. Farbin7 , A. Farilla72a , E.M. Farina68a,68b , T. Farooque103 , S.M. Farrington48 , P. Farthouat34 , F. Fassi33e ,
D. Fassouliotis8 , M. Faucci Giannelli71a,71b , W.J. Fawcett30 , L. Fayard62 , O.L. Fedin133,p , M. Feickert168 ,
L. Feligioni98 , A. Fell145 , C. Feng58b , M. Feng13b , M.J. Fenton166 , A.B. Fenyuk118 , S.W. Ferguson41 ,
J. Ferrando44 , A. Ferrari167 , P. Ferrari115 , R. Ferrari68a , D. Ferrere52 , C. Ferretti102 , F. Fiedler96 ,
A. Filipčič89 , F. Filthaut114 , M.C.N. Fiolhais135a,135c,a , L. Fiorini169 , F. Fischer147 , W.C. Fisher103 ,
T. Fitschen19 , I. Fleck147 , P. Fleischmann102 , T. Flick177 , B.M. Flierl110 , L. Flores132 , M. Flores31d ,
L.R. Flores Castillo60a , F.M. Follega73a,73b , N. Fomin15 , J.H. Foo162 , B.C. Forland63 , A. Formica140 ,
F.A. Förster12 , A.C. Forti97 , E. Fortin98 , M.G. Foti130 , L. Fountas8 , D. Fournier62 , H. Fox87 ,
P. Francavilla69a,69b , S. Francescato57 , M. Franchini21b,21a , S. Franchino59a , D. Francis34 , L. Franco4 ,
L. Franconi18 , M. Franklin57 , G. Frattari70a,70b , A.C. Freegard90 , P.M. Freeman19 , W.S. Freund78b ,
E.M. Freundlich45 , D. Froidevaux34 , J.A. Frost130 , Y. Fu58a , M. Fujimoto122 , E. Fullana Torregrosa169 ,
J. Fuster169 , A. Gabrielli21b,21a , A. Gabrielli34 , P. Gadow44 , G. Gagliardi53b,53a , L.G. Gagnon16 ,
G.E. Gallardo130 , E.J. Gallas130 , B.J. Gallop139 , R. Gamboa Goni90 , K.K. Gan123 , S. Ganguly159 , J. Gao58a ,
Y. Gao48 , Y.S. Gao29,m , F.M. Garay Walls142a , C. García169 , J.E. García Navarro169 , J.A. García Pascual13a ,
M. Garcia-Sciveres16 , R.W. Gardner35 , D. Garg75 , R.B. Garg149 , S. Gargiulo50 , C.A. Garner162 ,
V. Garonne129 , S.J. Gasiorowski144 , P. Gaspar78b , G. Gaudio68a , P. Gauzzi70a,70b , I.L. Gavrilenko107 ,

36
A. Gavrilyuk119 , C. Gay170 , G. Gaycken44 , E.N. Gazis9 , A.A. Geanta25b , C.M. Gee141 , C.N.P. Gee139 ,
J. Geisen94 , M. Geisen96 , C. Gemme53b , M.H. Genest56 , S. Gentile70a,70b , S. George91 , W.F. George19 ,
T. Geralis42 , L.O. Gerlach51 , P. Gessinger-Befurt34 , M. Ghasemi Bostanabad171 , A. Ghosh166 , A. Ghosh75 ,
B. Giacobbe21b , S. Giagu70a,70b , N. Giangiacomi162 , P. Giannetti69a , A. Giannini67a,67b , S.M. Gibson91 ,
M. Gignac141 , D.T. Gil81b , B.J. Gilbert37 , D. Gillberg32 , G. Gilles115 , N.E.K. Gillwald44 ,
D.M. Gingrich2,ai , M.P. Giordani64a,64c , P.F. Giraud140 , G. Giugliarelli64a,64c , D. Giugni66a , F. Giuli71a,71b ,
I. Gkialas8,h , P. Gkountoumis9 , L.K. Gladilin109 , C. Glasman95 , G.R. Gledhill127 , M. Glisic127 ,
I. Gnesi39b,d , M. Goblirsch-Kolb24 , D. Godin106 , S. Goldfarb101 , T. Golling52 , D. Golubkov118 ,
J.P. Gombas103 , A. Gomes135a,135b , R. Goncalves Gama51 , R. Gonçalo135a,135c , G. Gonella127 ,
L. Gonella19 , A. Gongadze77 , F. Gonnella19 , J.L. Gonski37 , S. González de la Hoz169 ,
S. Gonzalez Fernandez12 , R. Gonzalez Lopez88 , C. Gonzalez Renteria16 , R. Gonzalez Suarez167 ,
S. Gonzalez-Sevilla52 , G.R. Gonzalvo Rodriguez169 , R.Y. González Andana142a , L. Goossens34 ,
N.A. Gorasia19 , P.A. Gorbounov119 , H.A. Gordon27 , B. Gorini34 , E. Gorini65a,65b , A. Gorišek89 ,
A.T. Goshaw47 , M.I. Gostkin77 , C.A. Gottardo114 , M. Gouighri33b , V. Goumarre44 , A.G. Goussiou144 ,
N. Govender31c , C. Goy4 , I. Grabowska-Bold81a , K. Graham32 , E. Gramstad129 , S. Grancagnolo17 ,
M. Grandi152 , V. Gratchev133 , P.M. Gravila25f , F.G. Gravili65a,65b , H.M. Gray16 , C. Grefe22 , I.M. Gregor44 ,
P. Grenier149 , K. Grevtsov44 , C. Grieco12 , N.A. Grieser124 , A.A. Grillo141 , K. Grimm29,l , S. Grinstein12,v ,
J.-F. Grivaz62 , S. Groh96 , E. Gross175 , J. Grosse-Knetter51 , C. Grud102 , A. Grummer113 , J.C. Grundy130 ,
L. Guan102 , W. Guan176 , C. Gubbels170 , J. Guenther34 , J.G.R. Guerrero Rojas169 , F. Guescini111 ,
D. Guest17 , R. Gugel96 , A. Guida44 , T. Guillemin4 , S. Guindon34 , J. Guo58c , L. Guo62 , Y. Guo102 ,
R. Gupta44 , S. Gurbuz22 , G. Gustavino124 , M. Guth52 , P. Gutierrez124 , L.F. Gutierrez Zagazeta132 ,
C. Gutschow92 , C. Guyot140 , C. Gwenlan130 , C.B. Gwilliam88 , E.S. Haaland129 , A. Haas121 ,
M. Habedank44 , C. Haber16 , H.K. Hadavand7 , A. Hadef96 , S. Hadzic111 , M. Haleem172 , J. Haley125 ,
J.J. Hall145 , G. Halladjian103 , G.D. Hallewell98 , L. Halser18 , K. Hamano171 , H. Hamdaoui33e , M. Hamer22 ,
G.N. Hamity48 , K. Han58a , L. Han13c , L. Han58a , S. Han16 , Y.F. Han162 , K. Hanagaki79,t , M. Hance141 ,
M.D. Hank35 , R. Hankache97 , E. Hansen94 , J.B. Hansen38 , J.D. Hansen38 , M.C. Hansen22 , P.H. Hansen38 ,
K. Hara164 , T. Harenberg177 , S. Harkusha104 , Y.T. Harris130 , P.F. Harrison173 , N.M. Hartman149 ,
N.M. Hartmann110 , Y. Hasegawa146 , A. Hasib48 , S. Hassani140 , S. Haug18 , R. Hauser103 , M. Havranek137 ,
C.M. Hawkes19 , R.J. Hawkings34 , S. Hayashida112 , D. Hayden103 , C. Hayes102 , R.L. Hayes170 ,
C.P. Hays130 , J.M. Hays90 , H.S. Hayward88 , S.J. Haywood139 , F. He58a , Y. He160 , Y. He131 , M.P. Heath48 ,
V. Hedberg94 , A.L. Heggelund129 , N.D. Hehir90 , C. Heidegger50 , K.K. Heidegger50 , W.D. Heidorn76 ,
J. Heilman32 , S. Heim44 , T. Heim16 , B. Heinemann44,ag , J.G. Heinlein132 , J.J. Heinrich127 , L. Heinrich34 ,
J. Hejbal136 , L. Helary44 , A. Held121 , C.M. Helling141 , S. Hellman43a,43b , C. Helsens34 ,
R.C.W. Henderson87 , L. Henkelmann30 , A.M. Henriques Correia34 , H. Herde149 ,
Y. Hernández Jiménez151 , H. Herr96 , M.G. Herrmann110 , T. Herrmann46 , G. Herten50 , R. Hertenberger110 ,
L. Hervas34 , N.P. Hessey163a , H. Hibi80 , S. Higashino79 , E. Higón-Rodriguez169 , K.H. Hiller44 ,
S.J. Hillier19 , M. Hils46 , I. Hinchliffe16 , F. Hinterkeuser22 , M. Hirose128 , S. Hirose164 , D. Hirschbuehl177 ,
B. Hiti89 , O. Hladik136 , J. Hobbs151 , R. Hobincu25e , N. Hod175 , M.C. Hodgkinson145 , B.H. Hodkinson30 ,
A. Hoecker34 , J. Hofer44 , D. Hohn50 , T. Holm22 , T.R. Holmes35 , M. Holzbock111 , L.B.A.H. Hommels30 ,
B.P. Honan97 , J. Hong58c , T.M. Hong134 , Y. Hong51 , J.C. Honig50 , A. Hönle111 , B.H. Hooberman168 ,
W.H. Hopkins5 , Y. Horii112 , L.A. Horyn35 , S. Hou154 , J. Howarth55 , J. Hoya86 , M. Hrabovsky126 ,
A. Hrynevich105 , T. Hryn’ova4 , P.J. Hsu61 , S.-C. Hsu144 , Q. Hu37 , S. Hu58c , Y.F. Hu13a,13d,ak , D.P. Huang92 ,
X. Huang13c , Y. Huang58a , Y. Huang13a , Z. Hubacek137 , F. Hubaut98 , M. Huebner22 , F. Huegging22 ,
T.B. Huffman130 , M. Huhtinen34 , S.K. Huiberts15 , R. Hulsken56 , N. Huseynov77,z , J. Huston103 , J. Huth57 ,
R. Hyneman149 , S. Hyrych26a , G. Iacobucci52 , G. Iakovidis27 , I. Ibragimov147 , L. Iconomidou-Fayard62 ,
P. Iengo34 , R. Iguchi159 , T. Iizawa52 , Y. Ikegami79 , A. Ilg18 , N. Ilic162 , H. Imam33a ,
T. Ingebretsen Carlson43a,43b , G. Introzzi68a,68b , M. Iodice72a , V. Ippolito70a,70b , M. Ishino159 , W. Islam176 ,

37
C. Issever17,44 , S. Istin11c,al , J.M. Iturbe Ponce60a , R. Iuppa73a,73b , A. Ivina175 , J.M. Izen41 , V. Izzo67a ,
P. Jacka136 , P. Jackson1 , R.M. Jacobs44 , B.P. Jaeger148 , C.S. Jagfeld110 , G. Jäkel177 , K. Jakobs50 ,
T. Jakoubek175 , J. Jamieson55 , K.W. Janas81a , G. Jarlskog94 , A.E. Jaspan88 , N. Javadov77,z , T. Javůrek34 ,
M. Javurkova99 , F. Jeanneau140 , L. Jeanty127 , J. Jejelava155a,aa , P. Jenni50,e , S. Jézéquel4 , J. Jia151 , Z. Jia13c ,
Y. Jiang58a , S. Jiggins48 , J. Jimenez Pena111 , S. Jin13c , A. Jinaru25b , O. Jinnouchi160 , H. Jivan31f ,
P. Johansson145 , K.A. Johns6 , C.A. Johnson63 , D.M. Jones30 , E. Jones173 , R.W.L. Jones87 , T.J. Jones88 ,
J. Jovicevic14 , X. Ju16 , J.J. Junggeburth34 , A. Juste Rozas12,v , S. Kabana142d , A. Kaczmarska82 ,
M. Kado70a,70b , H. Kagan123 , M. Kagan149 , A. Kahn37 , A. Kahn132 , C. Kahra96 , T. Kaji174 ,
E. Kajomovitz156 , C.W. Kalderon27 , A. Kamenshchikov118 , M. Kaneda159 , N.J. Kang141 , S. Kang76 ,
Y. Kano112 , D. Kar31f , K. Karava130 , M.J. Kareem163b , I. Karkanias158 , S.N. Karpov77 , Z.M. Karpova77 ,
V. Kartvelishvili87 , A.N. Karyukhin118 , E. Kasimi158 , C. Kato58d , J. Katzy44 , K. Kawade146 ,
K. Kawagoe85 , T. Kawaguchi112 , T. Kawamoto140 , G. Kawamura51 , E.F. Kay171 , F.I. Kaya165 ,
S. Kazakos12 , V.F. Kazanin117b,117a , Y. Ke151 , J.M. Keaveney31a , R. Keeler171 , J.S. Keller32 , D. Kelsey152 ,
J.J. Kempster19 , J. Kendrick19 , K.E. Kennedy37 , O. Kepka136 , S. Kersten177 , B.P. Kerševan89 ,
S. Ketabchi Haghighat162 , M. Khandoga131 , A. Khanov125 , A.G. Kharlamov117b,117a ,
T. Kharlamova117b,117a , E.E. Khoda144 , T.J. Khoo17 , G. Khoriauli172 , E. Khramov77 , J. Khubua155b ,
S. Kido80 , M. Kiehn34 , A. Kilgallon127 , E. Kim160 , Y.K. Kim35 , N. Kimura92 , A. Kirchhoff51 ,
D. Kirchmeier46 , C. Kirfel22 , J. Kirk139 , A.E. Kiryunin111 , T. Kishimoto159 , D.P. Kisliuk162 , C. Kitsaki9 ,
O. Kivernyk22 , T. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus50 , M. Klassen59a , C. Klein32 , L. Klein172 , M.H. Klein102 ,
M. Klein88 , U. Klein88 , P. Klimek34 , A. Klimentov27 , F. Klimpel111 , T. Klingl22 , T. Klioutchnikova34 ,
F.F. Klitzner110 , P. Kluit115 , S. Kluth111 , E. Kneringer74 , T.M. Knight162 , A. Knue50 , D. Kobayashi85 ,
R. Kobayashi83 , M. Kobel46 , M. Kocian149 , T. Kodama159 , P. Kodys138 , D.M. Koeck152 , P.T. Koenig22 ,
T. Koffas32 , N.M. Köhler34 , M. Kolb140 , I. Koletsou4 , T. Komarek126 , K. Köneke50 , A.X.Y. Kong1 ,
T. Kono122 , V. Konstantinides92 , N. Konstantinidis92 , B. Konya94 , R. Kopeliansky63 , S. Koperny81a ,
K. Korcyl82 , K. Kordas158 , G. Koren157 , A. Korn92 , S. Korn51 , I. Korolkov12 , E.V. Korolkova145 ,
N. Korotkova109 , B. Kortman115 , O. Kortner111 , S. Kortner111 , W.H. Kostecka116 , V.V. Kostyukhin147,161 ,
A. Kotsokechagia62 , A. Kotwal47 , A. Koulouris34 , A. Kourkoumeli-Charalampidi68a,68b , C. Kourkoumelis8 ,
E. Kourlitis5 , O. Kovanda152 , R. Kowalewski171 , W. Kozanecki140 , A.S. Kozhin118 , V.A. Kramarenko109 ,
G. Kramberger89 , P. Kramer96 , D. Krasnopevtsev58a , M.W. Krasny131 , A. Krasznahorkay34 , J.A. Kremer96 ,
J. Kretzschmar88 , K. Kreul17 , P. Krieger162 , F. Krieter110 , S. Krishnamurthy99 , A. Krishnan59b ,
M. Krivos138 , K. Krizka16 , K. Kroeninger45 , H. Kroha111 , J. Kroll136 , J. Kroll132 , K.S. Krowpman103 ,
U. Kruchonak77 , H. Krüger22 , N. Krumnack76 , M.C. Kruse47 , J.A. Krzysiak82 , A. Kubota160 ,
O. Kuchinskaia161 , S. Kuday3a , D. Kuechler44 , J.T. Kuechler44 , S. Kuehn34 , T. Kuhl44 , V. Kukhtin77 ,
Y. Kulchitsky104,ad , S. Kuleshov142c , M. Kumar31f , N. Kumari98 , M. Kuna56 , A. Kupco136 , T. Kupfer45 ,
O. Kuprash50 , H. Kurashige80 , L.L. Kurchaninov163a , Y.A. Kurochkin104 , A. Kurova108 , M.G. Kurth13a,13d ,
E.S. Kuwertz34 , M. Kuze160 , A.K. Kvam144 , J. Kvita126 , T. Kwan100 , K.W. Kwok60a , C. Lacasta169 ,
F. Lacava70a,70b , H. Lacker17 , D. Lacour131 , N.N. Lad92 , E. Ladygin77 , R. Lafaye4 , B. Laforge131 ,
T. Lagouri142d , S. Lai51 , I.K. Lakomiec81a , N. Lalloue56 , J.E. Lambert124 , S. Lammers63 , W. Lampl6 ,
C. Lampoudis158 , E. Lançon27 , U. Landgraf50 , M.P.J. Landon90 , V.S. Lang50 , J.C. Lange51 ,
R.J. Langenberg99 , A.J. Lankford166 , F. Lanni27 , K. Lantzsch22 , A. Lanza68a , A. Lapertosa53b,53a ,
J.F. Laporte140 , T. Lari66a , F. Lasagni Manghi21b , M. Lassnig34 , V. Latonova136 , T.S. Lau60a ,
A. Laudrain96 , A. Laurier32 , M. Lavorgna67a,67b , S.D. Lawlor91 , Z. Lawrence97 , M. Lazzaroni66a,66b ,
B. Le97 , B. Leban89 , A. Lebedev76 , M. LeBlanc34 , T. LeCompte5 , F. Ledroit-Guillon56 , A.C.A. Lee92 ,
G.R. Lee15 , L. Lee57 , S.C. Lee154 , S. Lee76 , L.L. Leeuw31c , B. Lefebvre163a , H.P. Lefebvre91 ,
M. Lefebvre171 , C. Leggett16 , K. Lehmann148 , N. Lehmann18 , G. Lehmann Miotto34 , W.A. Leight44 ,
A. Leisos158,u , M.A.L. Leite78c , C.E. Leitgeb44 , R. Leitner138 , K.J.C. Leney40 , T. Lenz22 , S. Leone69a ,
C. Leonidopoulos48 , A. Leopold131 , C. Leroy106 , R. Les103 , C.G. Lester30 , M. Levchenko133 , J. Levêque4 ,

38
D. Levin102 , L.J. Levinson175 , D.J. Lewis19 , B. Li13b , B. Li58b , C. Li58a , C-Q. Li58c,58d , H. Li58a , H. Li58b ,
H. Li58b , J. Li58c , K. Li144 , L. Li58c , M. Li13a,13d , Q.Y. Li58a , S. Li58d,58c,c , T. Li58b , X. Li44 , Y. Li44 ,
Z. Li58b , Z. Li130 , Z. Li100 , Z. Li88 , Z. Liang13a , M. Liberatore44 , B. Liberti71a , K. Lie60c ,
J. Lieber Marin78b , K. Lin103 , R.A. Linck63 , R.E. Lindley6 , J.H. Lindon2 , A. Linss44 , E. Lipeles132 ,
A. Lipniacka15 , T.M. Liss168,ah , A. Lister170 , J.D. Little7 , B. Liu13a , B.X. Liu148 , J.B. Liu58a , J.K.K. Liu35 ,
K. Liu58d,58c , M. Liu58a , M.Y. Liu58a , P. Liu13a , X. Liu58a , Y. Liu44 , Y. Liu13c,13d , Y.L. Liu102 , Y.W. Liu58a ,
M. Livan68a,68b , J. Llorente Merino148 , S.L. Lloyd90 , E.M. Lobodzinska44 , P. Loch6 , S. Loffredo71a,71b ,
T. Lohse17 , K. Lohwasser145 , M. Lokajicek136 , J.D. Long168 , I. Longarini70a,70b , L. Longo34 , R. Longo168 ,
I. Lopez Paz12 , A. Lopez Solis44 , J. Lorenz110 , N. Lorenzo Martinez4 , A.M. Lory110 , A. Lösle50 ,
X. Lou43a,43b , X. Lou13a , A. Lounis62 , J. Love5 , P.A. Love87 , J.J. Lozano Bahilo169 , G. Lu13a , M. Lu58a ,
S. Lu132 , Y.J. Lu61 , H.J. Lubatti144 , C. Luci70a,70b , F.L. Lucio Alves13c , A. Lucotte56 , F. Luehring63 ,
I. Luise151 , L. Luminari70a , O. Lundberg150 , B. Lund-Jensen150 , N.A. Luongo127 , M.S. Lutz157 , D. Lynn27 ,
H. Lyons88 , R. Lysak136 , E. Lytken94 , F. Lyu13a , V. Lyubushkin77 , T. Lyubushkina77 , H. Ma27 , L.L. Ma58b ,
Y. Ma92 , D.M. Mac Donell171 , G. Maccarrone49 , C.M. Macdonald145 , J.C. MacDonald145 , R. Madar36 ,
W.F. Mader46 , M. Madugoda Ralalage Don125 , N. Madysa46 , J. Maeda80 , T. Maeno27 , M. Maerker46 ,
V. Magerl50 , J. Magro64a,64c , D.J. Mahon37 , C. Maidantchik78b , A. Maio135a,135b,135d , K. Maj81a ,
O. Majersky26a , S. Majewski127 , N. Makovec62 , V. Maksimovic14 , B. Malaescu131 , Pa. Malecki82 ,
V.P. Maleev133 , F. Malek56 , D. Malito39b,39a , U. Mallik75 , C. Malone30 , S. Maltezos9 , S. Malyukov77 ,
J. Mamuzic169 , G. Mancini49 , J.P. Mandalia90 , I. Mandić89 , L. Manhaes de Andrade Filho78a ,
I.M. Maniatis158 , M. Manisha140 , J. Manjarres Ramos46 , K.H. Mankinen94 , A. Mann110 , A. Manousos74 ,
B. Mansoulie140 , I. Manthos158 , S. Manzoni115 , A. Marantis158,u , G. Marchiori131 , M. Marcisovsky136 ,
L. Marcoccia71a,71b , C. Marcon94 , M. Marjanovic124 , Z. Marshall16 , S. Marti-Garcia169 , T.A. Martin173 ,
V.J. Martin48 , B. Martin dit Latour15 , L. Martinelli70a,70b , M. Martinez12,v , P. Martinez Agullo169 ,
V.I. Martinez Outschoorn99 , S. Martin-Haugh139 , V.S. Martoiu25b , A.C. Martyniuk92 , A. Marzin34 ,
S.R. Maschek111 , L. Masetti96 , T. Mashimo159 , J. Masik97 , A.L. Maslennikov117b,117a , L. Massa21b ,
P. Massarotti67a,67b , P. Mastrandrea69a,69b , A. Mastroberardino39b,39a , T. Masubuchi159 , D. Matakias27 ,
T. Mathisen167 , A. Matic110 , N. Matsuzawa159 , J. Maurer25b , B. Maček89 , D.A. Maximov117b,117a ,
R. Mazini154 , I. Maznas158 , S.M. Mazza141 , C. Mc Ginn27 , J.P. Mc Gowan100 , S.P. Mc Kee102 ,
T.G. McCarthy111 , W.P. McCormack16 , E.F. McDonald101 , A.E. McDougall115 , J.A. Mcfayden152 ,
G. Mchedlidze155b , M.A. McKay40 , K.D. McLean171 , S.J. McMahon139 , P.C. McNamara101 ,
R.A. McPherson171,y , J.E. Mdhluli31f , Z.A. Meadows99 , S. Meehan34 , T. Megy36 , S. Mehlhase110 ,
A. Mehta88 , B. Meirose41 , D. Melini156 , B.R. Mellado Garcia31f , A.H. Melo51 , F. Meloni44 , A. Melzer22 ,
E.D. Mendes Gouveia135a , A.M. Mendes Jacques Da Costa19 , H.Y. Meng162 , L. Meng34 , S. Menke111 ,
M. Mentink34 , E. Meoni39b,39a , C. Merlassino130 , P. Mermod52,* , L. Merola67a,67b , C. Meroni66a ,
G. Merz102 , O. Meshkov107,109 , J.K.R. Meshreki147 , J. Metcalfe5 , A.S. Mete5 , C. Meyer63 , J-P. Meyer140 ,
M. Michetti17 , R.P. Middleton139 , L. Mijović48 , G. Mikenberg175 , M. Mikestikova136 , M. Mikuž89 ,
H. Mildner145 , A. Milic162 , C.D. Milke40 , D.W. Miller35 , L.S. Miller32 , A. Milov175 , D.A. Milstead43a,43b ,
T. Min13c , A.A. Minaenko118 , I.A. Minashvili155b , L. Mince55 , A.I. Mincer121 , B. Mindur81a , M. Mineev77 ,
Y. Minegishi159 , Y. Mino83 , L.M. Mir12 , M. Miralles Lopez169 , M. Mironova130 , T. Mitani174 ,
V.A. Mitsou169 , M. Mittal58c , O. Miu162 , P.S. Miyagawa90 , Y. Miyazaki85 , A. Mizukami79 ,
J.U. Mjörnmark94 , T. Mkrtchyan59a , M. Mlynarikova116 , T. Moa43a,43b , S. Mobius51 , K. Mochizuki106 ,
P. Moder44 , P. Mogg110 , A.F. Mohammed13a , S. Mohapatra37 , G. Mokgatitswane31f , B. Mondal147 ,
S. Mondal137 , K. Mönig44 , E. Monnier98 , L. Monsonis Romero169 , A. Montalbano148 ,
J. Montejo Berlingen34 , M. Montella123 , F. Monticelli86 , N. Morange62 , A.L. Moreira De Carvalho135a ,
M. Moreno Llácer169 , C. Moreno Martinez12 , P. Morettini53b , S. Morgenstern173 , D. Mori148 , M. Morii57 ,
M. Morinaga159 , V. Morisbak129 , A.K. Morley34 , A.P. Morris92 , L. Morvaj34 , P. Moschovakos34 ,
B. Moser115 , M. Mosidze155b , T. Moskalets50 , P. Moskvitina114 , J. Moss29,n , E.J.W. Moyse99 , S. Muanza98 ,

39
J. Mueller134 , R. Mueller18 , D. Muenstermann87 , G.A. Mullier94 , J.J. Mullin132 , D.P. Mungo66a,66b ,
J.L. Munoz Martinez12 , F.J. Munoz Sanchez97 , M. Murin97 , P. Murin26b , W.J. Murray173,139 ,
A. Murrone66a,66b , J.M. Muse124 , M. Muškinja16 , C. Mwewa27 , A.G. Myagkov118,ae , A.J. Myers7 ,
A.A. Myers134 , G. Myers63 , M. Myska137 , B.P. Nachman16 , O. Nackenhorst45 , A.Nag Nag46 , K. Nagai130 ,
K. Nagano79 , J.L. Nagle27 , E. Nagy98 , A.M. Nairz34 , Y. Nakahama112 , K. Nakamura79 , H. Nanjo128 ,
F. Napolitano59a , R. Narayan40 , E.A. Narayanan113 , I. Naryshkin133 , M. Naseri32 , C. Nass22 , T. Naumann44 ,
G. Navarro20a , J. Navarro-Gonzalez169 , R. Nayak157 , P.Y. Nechaeva107 , F. Nechansky44 , T.J. Neep19 ,
A. Negri68a,68b , M. Negrini21b , C. Nellist114 , C. Nelson100 , K. Nelson102 , S. Nemecek136 , M. Nessi34,f ,
M.S. Neubauer168 , F. Neuhaus96 , J. Neundorf44 , R. Newhouse170 , P.R. Newman19 , C.W. Ng134 , Y.S. Ng17 ,
Y.W.Y. Ng166 , B. Ngair33e , H.D.N. Nguyen106 , R.B. Nickerson130 , R. Nicolaidou140 , D.S. Nielsen38 ,
J. Nielsen141 , M. Niemeyer51 , N. Nikiforou10 , V. Nikolaenko118,ae , I. Nikolic-Audit131 , K. Nikolopoulos19 ,
P. Nilsson27 , H.R. Nindhito52 , A. Nisati70a , N. Nishu2 , R. Nisius111 , T. Nitta174 , T. Nobe159 , D.L. Noel30 ,
Y. Noguchi83 , I. Nomidis131 , M.A. Nomura27 , M.B. Norfolk145 , R.R.B. Norisam92 , J. Novak89 , T. Novak44 ,
O. Novgorodova46 , L. Novotny137 , R. Novotny113 , L. Nozka126 , K. Ntekas166 , E. Nurse92 ,
F.G. Oakham32,ai , J. Ocariz131 , A. Ochi80 , I. Ochoa135a , J.P. Ochoa-Ricoux142a , S. Oda85 , S. Odaka79 ,
S. Oerdek167 , A. Ogrodnik81a , A. Oh97 , C.C. Ohm150 , H. Oide160 , R. Oishi159 , M.L. Ojeda44 ,
Y. Okazaki83 , M.W. O’Keefe88 , Y. Okumura159 , A. Olariu25b , L.F. Oleiro Seabra135a ,
S.A. Olivares Pino142d , D. Oliveira Damazio27 , D. Oliveira Goncalves78a , J.L. Oliver166 , M.J.R. Olsson166 ,
A. Olszewski82 , J. Olszowska82 , Ö.O. Öncel22 , D.C. O’Neil148 , A.P. O’neill130 , A. Onofre135a,135e ,
P.U.E. Onyisi10 , R.G. Oreamuno Madriz116 , M.J. Oreglia35 , G.E. Orellana86 , D. Orestano72a,72b ,
N. Orlando12 , R.S. Orr162 , V. O’Shea55 , R. Ospanov58a , G. Otero y Garzon28 , H. Otono85 , P.S. Ott59a ,
G.J. Ottino16 , M. Ouchrif33d , J. Ouellette27 , F. Ould-Saada129 , A. Ouraou140,* , Q. Ouyang13a , M. Owen55 ,
R.E. Owen139 , K.Y. Oyulmaz11c , V.E. Ozcan11c , N. Ozturk7 , S. Ozturk11c , J. Pacalt126 , H.A. Pacey30 ,
K. Pachal47 , A. Pacheco Pages12 , C. Padilla Aranda12 , S. Pagan Griso16 , G. Palacino63 , S. Palazzo48 ,
S. Palestini34 , M. Palka81b , P. Palni81a , D.K. Panchal10 , C.E. Pandini52 , J.G. Panduro Vazquez91 , P. Pani44 ,
G. Panizzo64a,64c , L. Paolozzi52 , C. Papadatos106 , S. Parajuli40 , A. Paramonov5 , C. Paraskevopoulos9 ,
D. Paredes Hernandez60b , S.R. Paredes Saenz130 , B. Parida175 , T.H. Park162 , A.J. Parker29 , M.A. Parker30 ,
F. Parodi53b,53a , E.W. Parrish116 , J.A. Parsons37 , U. Parzefall50 , L. Pascual Dominguez157 , V.R. Pascuzzi16 ,
F. Pasquali115 , E. Pasqualucci70a , S. Passaggio53b , F. Pastore91 , P. Pasuwan43a,43b , J.R. Pater97 ,
A. Pathak176 , J. Patton88 , T. Pauly34 , J. Pearkes149 , M. Pedersen129 , L. Pedraza Diaz114 , R. Pedro135a ,
T. Peiffer51 , S.V. Peleganchuk117b,117a , O. Penc136 , C. Peng60b , H. Peng58a , M. Penzin161 , B.S. Peralva78a ,
A.P. Pereira Peixoto135a , L. Pereira Sanchez43a,43b , D.V. Perepelitsa27 , E. Perez Codina163a , M. Perganti9 ,
L. Perini66a,66b , H. Pernegger34 , S. Perrella34 , A. Perrevoort115 , K. Peters44 , R.F.Y. Peters97 ,
B.A. Petersen34 , T.C. Petersen38 , E. Petit98 , V. Petousis137 , C. Petridou158 , P. Petroff62 , F. Petrucci72a,72b ,
A. Petrukhin147 , M. Pettee178 , N.E. Pettersson34 , K. Petukhova138 , A. Peyaud140 , R. Pezoa142e ,
L. Pezzotti34 , G. Pezzullo178 , T. Pham101 , P.W. Phillips139 , M.W. Phipps168 , G. Piacquadio151 , E. Pianori16 ,
F. Piazza66a,66b , A. Picazio99 , R. Piegaia28 , D. Pietreanu25b , J.E. Pilcher35 , A.D. Pilkington97 ,
M. Pinamonti64a,64c , J.L. Pinfold2 , C. Pitman Donaldson92 , D.A. Pizzi32 , L. Pizzimento71a,71b ,
A. Pizzini115 , M.-A. Pleier27 , V. Plesanovs50 , V. Pleskot138 , E. Plotnikova77 , P. Podberezko117b,117a ,
R. Poettgen94 , R. Poggi52 , L. Poggioli131 , I. Pogrebnyak103 , D. Pohl22 , I. Pokharel51 , G. Polesello68a ,
A. Poley148,163a , A. Policicchio70a,70b , R. Polifka138 , A. Polini21b , C.S. Pollard130 , Z.B. Pollock123 ,
V. Polychronakos27 , D. Ponomarenko108 , L. Pontecorvo34 , S. Popa25a , G.A. Popeneciu25d , L. Portales4 ,
D.M. Portillo Quintero163a , S. Pospisil137 , P. Postolache25c , K. Potamianos130 , I.N. Potrap77 , C.J. Potter30 ,
H. Potti1 , T. Poulsen44 , J. Poveda169 , T.D. Powell145 , G. Pownall44 , M.E. Pozo Astigarraga34 ,
A. Prades Ibanez169 , P. Pralavorio98 , M.M. Prapa42 , S. Prell76 , D. Price97 , M. Primavera65a ,
M.A. Principe Martin95 , M.L. Proffitt144 , N. Proklova108 , K. Prokofiev60c , F. Prokoshin77 ,
S. Protopopescu27 , J. Proudfoot5 , M. Przybycien81a , D. Pudzha133 , P. Puzo62 , D. Pyatiizbyantseva108 ,

40
J. Qian102 , Y. Qin97 , T. Qiu90 , A. Quadt51 , M. Queitsch-Maitland34 , G. Rabanal Bolanos57 ,
F. Ragusa66a,66b , J.A. Raine52 , S. Rajagopalan27 , K. Ran13a,13d , D.F. Rassloff59a , D.M. Rauch44 , S. Rave96 ,
B. Ravina55 , I. Ravinovich175 , M. Raymond34 , A.L. Read129 , N.P. Readioff145 , D.M. Rebuzzi68a,68b ,
G. Redlinger27 , K. Reeves41 , D. Reikher157 , A. Reiss96 , A. Rej147 , C. Rembser34 , A. Renardi44 ,
M. Renda25b , M.B. Rendel111 , A.G. Rennie55 , S. Resconi66a , M. Ressegotti53b,53a , E.D. Resseguie16 ,
S. Rettie92 , B. Reynolds123 , E. Reynolds19 , M. Rezaei Estabragh177 , O.L. Rezanova117b,117a ,
P. Reznicek138 , E. Ricci73a,73b , R. Richter111 , S. Richter44 , E. Richter-Was81b , M. Ridel131 , P. Rieck111 ,
P. Riedler34 , O. Rifki44 , M. Rijssenbeek151 , A. Rimoldi68a,68b , M. Rimoldi44 , L. Rinaldi21b,21a ,
T.T. Rinn168 , M.P. Rinnagel110 , G. Ripellino150 , I. Riu12 , P. Rivadeneira44 , J.C. Rivera Vergara171 ,
F. Rizatdinova125 , E. Rizvi90 , C. Rizzi52 , B.A. Roberts173 , B.R. Roberts16 , S.H. Robertson100,y ,
M. Robin44 , D. Robinson30 , C.M. Robles Gajardo142e , M. Robles Manzano96 , A. Robson55 ,
A. Rocchi71a,71b , C. Roda69a,69b , S. Rodriguez Bosca59a , A. Rodriguez Rodriguez50 ,
A.M. Rodríguez Vera163b , S. Roe34 , A.R. Roepe124 , J. Roggel177 , O. Røhne129 , R.A. Rojas171 , B. Roland50 ,
C.P.A. Roland63 , J. Roloff27 , A. Romaniouk108 , M. Romano21b , A.C. Romero Hernandez168 ,
N. Rompotis88 , M. Ronzani121 , L. Roos131 , S. Rosati70a , B.J. Rosser132 , E. Rossi162 , E. Rossi4 ,
E. Rossi67a,67b , L.P. Rossi53b , L. Rossini44 , R. Rosten123 , M. Rotaru25b , B. Rottler50 , D. Rousseau62 ,
D. Rousso30 , G. Rovelli68a,68b , A. Roy10 , A. Rozanov98 , Y. Rozen156 , X. Ruan31f , A.J. Ruby88 ,
T.A. Ruggeri1 , F. Rühr50 , A. Ruiz-Martinez169 , A. Rummler34 , Z. Rurikova50 , N.A. Rusakovich77 ,
H.L. Russell34 , L. Rustige36 , J.P. Rutherfoord6 , E.M. Rüttinger145 , M. Rybar138 , E.B. Rye129 ,
A. Ryzhov118 , J.A. Sabater Iglesias44 , P. Sabatini169 , L. Sabetta70a,70b , H.F-W. Sadrozinski141 ,
R. Sadykov77 , F. Safai Tehrani70a , B. Safarzadeh Samani152 , M. Safdari149 , S. Saha100 , M. Sahinsoy111 ,
A. Sahu177 , M. Saimpert140 , M. Saito159 , T. Saito159 , D. Salamani34 , G. Salamanna72a,72b , A. Salnikov149 ,
J. Salt169 , A. Salvador Salas12 , D. Salvatore39b,39a , F. Salvatore152 , A. Salzburger34 , D. Sammel50 ,
D. Sampsonidis158 , D. Sampsonidou58d,58c , J. Sánchez169 , A. Sanchez Pineda4 , V. Sanchez Sebastian169 ,
H. Sandaker129 , C.O. Sander44 , I.G. Sanderswood87 , J.A. Sandesara99 , M. Sandhoff177 , C. Sandoval20b ,
D.P.C. Sankey139 , M. Sannino53b,53a , A. Sansoni49 , C. Santoni36 , H. Santos135a,135b , S.N. Santpur16 ,
A. Santra175 , K.A. Saoucha145 , A. Sapronov77 , J.G. Saraiva135a,135d , J. Sardain98 , O. Sasaki79 , K. Sato164 ,
C. Sauer59b , F. Sauerburger50 , E. Sauvan4 , P. Savard162,ai , R. Sawada159 , C. Sawyer139 , L. Sawyer93 ,
I. Sayago Galvan169 , C. Sbarra21b , A. Sbrizzi21b,21a , T. Scanlon92 , J. Schaarschmidt144 , P. Schacht111 ,
D. Schaefer35 , U. Schäfer96 , A.C. Schaffer62 , D. Schaile110 , R.D. Schamberger151 , E. Schanet110 ,
C. Scharf17 , N. Scharmberg97 , V.A. Schegelsky133 , D. Scheirich138 , F. Schenck17 , M. Schernau166 ,
C. Schiavi53b,53a , L.K. Schildgen22 , Z.M. Schillaci24 , E.J. Schioppa65a,65b , M. Schioppa39b,39a , B. Schlag96 ,
K.E. Schleicher50 , S. Schlenker34 , K. Schmieden96 , C. Schmitt96 , S. Schmitt44 , L. Schoeffel140 ,
A. Schoening59b , P.G. Scholer50 , E. Schopf130 , M. Schott96 , J. Schovancova34 , S. Schramm52 ,
F. Schroeder177 , H-C. Schultz-Coulon59a , M. Schumacher50 , B.A. Schumm141 , Ph. Schune140 ,
A. Schwartzman149 , T.A. Schwarz102 , Ph. Schwemling140 , R. Schwienhorst103 , A. Sciandra141 ,
G. Sciolla24 , F. Scuri69a , F. Scutti101 , C.D. Sebastiani88 , K. Sedlaczek45 , P. Seema17 , S.C. Seidel113 ,
A. Seiden141 , B.D. Seidlitz27 , T. Seiss35 , C. Seitz44 , J.M. Seixas78b , G. Sekhniaidze67a , S.J. Sekula40 ,
L.P. Selem4 , N. Semprini-Cesari21b,21a , S. Sen47 , C. Serfon27 , L. Serin62 , L. Serkin64a,64b , M. Sessa72a,72b ,
H. Severini124 , S. Sevova149 , F. Sforza53b,53a , A. Sfyrla52 , E. Shabalina51 , R. Shaheen150 ,
J.D. Shahinian132 , N.W. Shaikh43a,43b , D. Shaked Renous175 , L.Y. Shan13a , M. Shapiro16 , A. Sharma34 ,
A.S. Sharma1 , S. Sharma44 , P.B. Shatalov119 , K. Shaw152 , S.M. Shaw97 , P. Sherwood92 , L. Shi92 ,
C.O. Shimmin178 , Y. Shimogama174 , J.D. Shinner91 , I.P.J. Shipsey130 , S. Shirabe52 , M. Shiyakova77 ,
J. Shlomi175 , M.J. Shochet35 , J. Shojaii101 , D.R. Shope150 , S. Shrestha123 , E.M. Shrif31f , M.J. Shroff171 ,
E. Shulga175 , P. Sicho136 , A.M. Sickles168 , E. Sideras Haddad31f , O. Sidiropoulou34 , A. Sidoti21b ,
F. Siegert46 , Dj. Sijacki14 , J.M. Silva19 , M.V. Silva Oliveira34 , S.B. Silverstein43a , S. Simion62 ,
R. Simoniello34 , N.D. Simpson94 , S. Simsek11b , P. Sinervo162 , V. Sinetckii109 , S. Singh148 , S. Singh162 ,

41
S. Sinha44 , S. Sinha31f , M. Sioli21b,21a , I. Siral127 , S.Yu. Sivoklokov109 , J. Sjölin43a,43b , A. Skaf51 ,
E. Skorda94 , P. Skubic124 , M. Slawinska82 , K. Sliwa165 , V. Smakhtin175 , B.H. Smart139 , J. Smiesko138 ,
S.Yu. Smirnov108 , Y. Smirnov108 , L.N. Smirnova109,r , O. Smirnova94 , E.A. Smith35 , H.A. Smith130 ,
M. Smizanska87 , K. Smolek137 , A. Smykiewicz82 , A.A. Snesarev107 , H.L. Snoek115 , S. Snyder27 ,
R. Sobie171,y , A. Soffer157 , F. Sohns51 , C.A. Solans Sanchez34 , E.Yu. Soldatov108 , U. Soldevila169 ,
A.A. Solodkov118 , S. Solomon50 , A. Soloshenko77 , O.V. Solovyanov118 , V. Solovyev133 , P. Sommer145 ,
H. Son165 , A. Sonay12 , W.Y. Song163b , A. Sopczak137 , A.L. Sopio92 , F. Sopkova26b , S. Sottocornola68a,68b ,
R. Soualah64a,64c , A.M. Soukharev117b,117a , Z. Soumaimi33e , D. South44 , S. Spagnolo65a,65b , M. Spalla111 ,
M. Spangenberg173 , F. Spanò91 , D. Sperlich50 , T.M. Spieker59a , G. Spigo34 , M. Spina152 , D.P. Spiteri55 ,
M. Spousta138 , A. Stabile66a,66b , B.L. Stamas116 , R. Stamen59a , M. Stamenkovic115 , A. Stampekis19 ,
M. Standke22 , E. Stanecka82 , B. Stanislaus34 , M.M. Stanitzki44 , M. Stankaityte130 , B. Stapf44 ,
E.A. Starchenko118 , G.H. Stark141 , J. Stark98 , D.M. Starko163b , P. Staroba136 , P. Starovoitov59a , S. Stärz100 ,
R. Staszewski82 , G. Stavropoulos42 , P. Steinberg27 , A.L. Steinhebel127 , B. Stelzer148,163a , H.J. Stelzer134 ,
O. Stelzer-Chilton163a , H. Stenzel54 , T.J. Stevenson152 , G.A. Stewart34 , M.C. Stockton34 , G. Stoicea25b ,
M. Stolarski135a , S. Stonjek111 , A. Straessner46 , J. Strandberg150 , S. Strandberg43a,43b , M. Strauss124 ,
T. Strebler98 , P. Strizenec26b , R. Ströhmer172 , D.M. Strom127 , L.R. Strom44 , R. Stroynowski40 ,
A. Strubig43a,43b , S.A. Stucci27 , B. Stugu15 , J. Stupak124 , N.A. Styles44 , D. Su149 , S. Su58a , W. Su58d,144,58c ,
X. Su58a , K. Sugizaki159 , V.V. Sulin107 , M.J. Sullivan88 , D.M.S. Sultan52 , L. Sultanaliyeva107 ,
S. Sultansoy3c , T. Sumida83 , S. Sun102 , S. Sun176 , X. Sun97 , O. Sunneborn Gudnadottir167 ,
C.J.E. Suster153 , M.R. Sutton152 , M. Svatos136 , M. Swiatlowski163a , T. Swirski172 , I. Sykora26a ,
M. Sykora138 , T. Sykora138 , D. Ta96 , K. Tackmann44,w , A. Taffard166 , R. Tafirout163a , R.H.M. Taibah131 ,
R. Takashima84 , K. Takeda80 , T. Takeshita146 , E.P. Takeva48 , Y. Takubo79 , M. Talby98 ,
A.A. Talyshev117b,117a , K.C. Tam60b , N.M. Tamir157 , A. Tanaka159 , J. Tanaka159 , R. Tanaka62 , J. Tang58c ,
Z. Tao170 , S. Tapia Araya76 , S. Tapprogge96 , A. Tarek Abouelfadl Mohamed103 , S. Tarem156 , K. Tariq58b ,
G. Tarna25b , G.F. Tartarelli66a , P. Tas138 , M. Tasevsky136 , E. Tassi39b,39a , G. Tateno159 , Y. Tayalati33e ,
G.N. Taylor101 , W. Taylor163b , H. Teagle88 , A.S. Tee176 , R. Teixeira De Lima149 , P. Teixeira-Dias91 ,
H. Ten Kate34 , J.J. Teoh115 , K. Terashi159 , J. Terron95 , S. Terzo12 , M. Testa49 , R.J. Teuscher162,y ,
N. Themistokleous48 , T. Theveneaux-Pelzer17 , O. Thielmann177 , D.W. Thomas91 , J.P. Thomas19 ,
E.A. Thompson44 , P.D. Thompson19 , E. Thomson132 , E.J. Thorpe90 , Y. Tian51 , V.O. Tikhomirov107,af ,
Yu.A. Tikhonov117b,117a , S. Timoshenko108 , P. Tipton178 , S. Tisserant98 , S.H. Tlou31f , A. Tnourji36 ,
K. Todome21b,21a , S. Todorova-Nova138 , S. Todt46 , M. Togawa79 , J. Tojo85 , S. Tokár26a , K. Tokushuku79 ,
E. Tolley123 , R. Tombs30 , M. Tomoto79,112 , L. Tompkins149 , P. Tornambe99 , E. Torrence127 , H. Torres46 ,
E. Torró Pastor169 , M. Toscani28 , C. Tosciri35 , J. Toth98,x , D.R. Tovey145 , A. Traeet15 , C.J. Treado121 ,
T. Trefzger172 , A. Tricoli27 , I.M. Trigger163a , S. Trincaz-Duvoid131 , D.A. Trischuk170 , W. Trischuk162 ,
B. Trocmé56 , A. Trofymov62 , C. Troncon66a , F. Trovato152 , L. Truong31c , M. Trzebinski82 , A. Trzupek82 ,
F. Tsai151 , A. Tsiamis158 , P.V. Tsiareshka104,ad , A. Tsirigotis158,u , V. Tsiskaridze151 , E.G. Tskhadadze155a ,
M. Tsopoulou158 , Y. Tsujikawa83 , I.I. Tsukerman119 , V. Tsulaia16 , S. Tsuno79 , O. Tsur156 , D. Tsybychev151 ,
Y. Tu60b , A. Tudorache25b , V. Tudorache25b , A.N. Tuna34 , S. Turchikhin77 , I. Turk Cakir3a , R.J. Turner19 ,
R. Turra66a , P.M. Tuts37 , S. Tzamarias158 , P. Tzanis9 , E. Tzovara96 , K. Uchida159 , F. Ukegawa164 ,
P.A. Ulloa Poblete142c , G. Unal34 , M. Unal10 , A. Undrus27 , G. Unel166 , F.C. Ungaro101 , K. Uno159 ,
J. Urban26b , P. Urquijo101 , G. Usai7 , R. Ushioda160 , M. Usman106 , Z. Uysal11d , V. Vacek137 , B. Vachon100 ,
K.O.H. Vadla129 , T. Vafeiadis34 , C. Valderanis110 , E. Valdes Santurio43a,43b , M. Valente163a ,
S. Valentinetti21b,21a , A. Valero169 , R.A. Vallance19 , A. Vallier98 , J.A. Valls Ferrer169 , T.R. Van Daalen144 ,
P. Van Gemmeren5 , S. Van Stroud92 , I. Van Vulpen115 , M. Vanadia71a,71b , W. Vandelli34 ,
M. Vandenbroucke140 , E.R. Vandewall125 , D. Vannicola157 , L. Vannoli53b,53a , R. Vari70a , E.W. Varnes6 ,
C. Varni16 , T. Varol154 , D. Varouchas62 , K.E. Varvell153 , M.E. Vasile25b , L. Vaslin36 , G.A. Vasquez171 ,
F. Vazeille36 , D. Vazquez Furelos12 , T. Vazquez Schroeder34 , J. Veatch51 , V. Vecchio97 , M.J. Veen115 ,

42
I. Veliscek130 , L.M. Veloce162 , F. Veloso135a,135c , S. Veneziano70a , A. Ventura65a,65b , A. Verbytskyi111 ,
M. Verducci69a,69b , C. Vergis22 , M. Verissimo De Araujo78b , W. Verkerke115 , A.T. Vermeulen115 ,
J.C. Vermeulen115 , C. Vernieri149 , P.J. Verschuuren91 , M. Vessella99 , M.L. Vesterbacka121 ,
M.C. Vetterli148,ai , A. Vgenopoulos158 , N. Viaux Maira142e , T. Vickey145 , O.E. Vickey Boeriu145 ,
G.H.A. Viehhauser130 , L. Vigani59b , M. Villa21b,21a , M. Villaplana Perez169 , E.M. Villhauer48 ,
E. Vilucchi49 , M.G. Vincter32 , G.S. Virdee19 , A. Vishwakarma48 , C. Vittori21b,21a , I. Vivarelli152 ,
V. Vladimirov173 , E. Voevodina111 , M. Vogel177 , P. Vokac137 , J. Von Ahnen44 , E. Von Toerne22 ,
V. Vorobel138 , K. Vorobev108 , M. Vos169 , J.H. Vossebeld88 , M. Vozak97 , L. Vozdecky90 , N. Vranjes14 ,
M. Vranjes Milosavljevic14 , V. Vrba137,* , M. Vreeswijk115 , N.K. Vu98 , R. Vuillermet34 , O.V. Vujinovic96 ,
I. Vukotic35 , S. Wada164 , C. Wagner99 , W. Wagner177 , S. Wahdan177 , H. Wahlberg86 , R. Wakasa164 ,
M. Wakida112 , V.M. Walbrecht111 , J. Walder139 , R. Walker110 , S.D. Walker91 , W. Walkowiak147 ,
A.M. Wang57 , A.Z. Wang176 , C. Wang58a , C. Wang58c , H. Wang16 , J. Wang60a , P. Wang40 , R.-J. Wang96 ,
R. Wang57 , R. Wang116 , S.M. Wang154 , S. Wang58b , T. Wang58a , W.T. Wang75 , W.X. Wang58a , X. Wang13c ,
X. Wang168 , X. Wang58c , Y. Wang58a , Z. Wang102 , C. Wanotayaroj34 , A. Warburton100 , C.P. Ward30 ,
R.J. Ward19 , N. Warrack55 , A.T. Watson19 , M.F. Watson19 , G. Watts144 , B.M. Waugh92 , A.F. Webb10 ,
C. Weber27 , M.S. Weber18 , S.A. Weber32 , S.M. Weber59a , C. Wei58a , Y. Wei130 , A.R. Weidberg130 ,
J. Weingarten45 , M. Weirich96 , C. Weiser50 , T. Wenaus27 , B. Wendland45 , T. Wengler34 , S. Wenig34 ,
N. Wermes22 , M. Wessels59a , K. Whalen127 , A.M. Wharton87 , A.S. White57 , A. White7 , M.J. White1 ,
D. Whiteson166 , L. Wickremasinghe128 , W. Wiedenmann176 , C. Wiel46 , M. Wielers139 , N. Wieseotte96 ,
C. Wiglesworth38 , L.A.M. Wiik-Fuchs50 , D.J. Wilbern124 , H.G. Wilkens34 , L.J. Wilkins91 ,
D.M. Williams37 , H.H. Williams132 , S. Williams30 , S. Willocq99 , P.J. Windischhofer130 ,
I. Wingerter-Seez4 , F. Winklmeier127 , B.T. Winter50 , M. Wittgen149 , M. Wobisch93 , A. Wolf96 ,
R. Wölker130 , J. Wollrath166 , M.W. Wolter82 , H. Wolters135a,135c , V.W.S. Wong170 , A.F. Wongel44 ,
S.D. Worm44 , B.K. Wosiek82 , K.W. Woźniak82 , K. Wraight55 , J. Wu13a,13d , S.L. Wu176 , X. Wu52 ,
Y. Wu58a , Z. Wu140,58a , J. Wuerzinger130 , T.R. Wyatt97 , B.M. Wynne48 , S. Xella38 , L. Xia13c , M. Xia13b ,
J. Xiang60c , X. Xiao102 , M. Xie58a , X. Xie58a , I. Xiotidis152 , D. Xu13a , H. Xu58a , H. Xu58a , L. Xu58a ,
R. Xu132 , T. Xu58a , W. Xu102 , Y. Xu13b , Z. Xu58b , Z. Xu149 , B. Yabsley153 , S. Yacoob31a , N. Yamaguchi85 ,
Y. Yamaguchi160 , M. Yamatani159 , H. Yamauchi164 , T. Yamazaki16 , Y. Yamazaki80 , J. Yan58c , S. Yan130 ,
Z. Yan23 , H.J. Yang58c,58d , H.T. Yang16 , S. Yang58a , T. Yang60c , X. Yang58a , X. Yang13a , Y. Yang159 ,
Z. Yang102,58a , W-M. Yao16 , Y.C. Yap44 , H. Ye13c , J. Ye40 , S. Ye27 , I. Yeletskikh77 , M.R. Yexley87 ,
P. Yin37 , K. Yorita174 , K. Yoshihara76 , C.J.S. Young50 , C. Young149 , M. Yuan102 , R. Yuan58b,i , X. Yue59a ,
M. Zaazoua33e , B. Zabinski82 , G. Zacharis9 , E. Zaid48 , A.M. Zaitsev118,ae , T. Zakareishvili155b ,
N. Zakharchuk32 , S. Zambito34 , D. Zanzi50 , S.V. Zeißner45 , C. Zeitnitz177 , J.C. Zeng168 , D.T. Zenger Jr24 ,
O. Zenin118 , T. Ženiš26a , S. Zenz90 , S. Zerradi33a , D. Zerwas62 , B. Zhang13c , D.F. Zhang145 , G. Zhang13b ,
J. Zhang5 , K. Zhang13a , L. Zhang13c , M. Zhang168 , R. Zhang176 , S. Zhang102 , X. Zhang58c , X. Zhang58b ,
Z. Zhang62 , P. Zhao47 , T. Zhao58b , Y. Zhao141 , Z. Zhao58a , A. Zhemchugov77 , Z. Zheng149 , D. Zhong168 ,
B. Zhou102 , C. Zhou176 , H. Zhou6 , N. Zhou58c , Y. Zhou6 , C.G. Zhu58b , C. Zhu13a,13d , H.L. Zhu58a ,
H. Zhu13a , J. Zhu102 , Y. Zhu58a , X. Zhuang13a , K. Zhukov107 , V. Zhulanov117b,117a , D. Zieminska63 ,
N.I. Zimine77 , S. Zimmermann50,* , J. Zinsser59b , M. Ziolkowski147 , L. Živković14 , A. Zoccoli21b,21a ,
K. Zoch52 , T.G. Zorbas145 , O. Zormpa42 , W. Zou37 , L. Zwalinski34 .
1 Department of Physics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide; Australia.
2 Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton AB; Canada.
3 (𝑎) Department of Physics, Ankara University, Ankara; (𝑏) Istanbul Aydin University, Application and

Research Center for Advanced Studies, Istanbul; (𝑐) Division of Physics, TOBB University of Economics
and Technology, Ankara; Turkey.
4 LAPP, Univ. Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy ; France.

43
5 High Energy Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne IL; United States of America.
6 Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ; United States of America.
7 Department of Physics, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington TX; United States of America.
8 Physics Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens; Greece.
9 Physics Department, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou; Greece.
10 Department of Physics, University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX; United States of America.
11 (𝑎) Bahcesehir University, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Istanbul; (𝑏) Istanbul Bilgi

University, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Istanbul; (𝑐) Department of Physics, Bogazici
University, Istanbul; (𝑑) Department of Physics Engineering, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep; Turkey.
12 Institut de Física d’Altes Energies (IFAE), Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Barcelona;

Spain.
13 (𝑎) Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing; (𝑏) Physics Department,

Tsinghua University, Beijing; (𝑐) Department of Physics, Nanjing University, Nanjing; (𝑑) University of
Chinese Academy of Science (UCAS), Beijing; China.
14 Institute of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade; Serbia.
15 Department for Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen; Norway.
16 Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley CA;

United States of America.

17 Institut für Physik, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin; Germany.
18 Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics and Laboratory for High Energy Physics, University of

Bern, Bern; Switzerland.

19 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham; United Kingdom.
20 (𝑎) Facultad de Ciencias y Centro de Investigaciónes, Universidad Antonio Nariño,

Bogotá; (𝑏) Departamento de Física, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá; Colombia.

21 (𝑎) Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia A. Righi, Università di Bologna, Bologna; (𝑏) INFN Sezione di

Bologna; Italy.
22 Physikalisches Institut, Universität Bonn, Bonn; Germany.
23 Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston MA; United States of America.
24 Department of Physics, Brandeis University, Waltham MA; United States of America.
25 (𝑎) Transilvania University of Brasov, Brasov; (𝑏) Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear

Engineering, Bucharest; (𝑐) Department of Physics, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi,
Iasi; (𝑑) National Institute for Research and Development of Isotopic and Molecular Technologies, Physics
Department, Cluj-Napoca; (𝑒) University Politehnica Bucharest, Bucharest; ( 𝑓 ) West University in Timisoara,
Timisoara; Romania.
26 (𝑎) Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Comenius University, Bratislava; (𝑏) Department of

Subnuclear Physics, Institute of Experimental Physics of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Kosice; Slovak
Republic.
27 Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton NY; United States of America.
28 Departamento de Física (FCEN) and IFIBA, Universidad de Buenos Aires and CONICET, Buenos Aires;

Argentina.
29 California State University, CA; United States of America.
30 Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge; United Kingdom.
31 (𝑎) Department of Physics, University of Cape Town, Cape Town; (𝑏) iThemba Labs, Western

Cape; (𝑐) Department of Mechanical Engineering Science, University of Johannesburg,

Johannesburg; (𝑑) National Institute of Physics, University of the Philippines Diliman
(Philippines); (𝑒) University of South Africa, Department of Physics, Pretoria; ( 𝑓 ) School of Physics,
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg; South Africa.

44
32 Department of Physics, Carleton University, Ottawa ON; Canada.
33 (𝑎) Faculté des Sciences Ain Chock, Réseau Universitaire de Physique des Hautes Energies - Université
Hassan II, Casablanca; (𝑏) Faculté des Sciences, Université Ibn-Tofail, Kénitra; (𝑐) Faculté des Sciences
Semlalia, Université Cadi Ayyad, LPHEA-Marrakech; (𝑑) LPMR, Faculté des Sciences, Université
Mohamed Premier, Oujda; (𝑒) Faculté des sciences, Université Mohammed V, Rabat; ( 𝑓 ) Mohammed VI
Polytechnic University, Ben Guerir; Morocco.
34 CERN, Geneva; Switzerland.
35 Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago IL; United States of America.
36 LPC, Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, Clermont-Ferrand; France.
37 Nevis Laboratory, Columbia University, Irvington NY; United States of America.
38 Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen; Denmark.
39 (𝑎) Dipartimento di Fisica, Università della Calabria, Rende; (𝑏) INFN Gruppo Collegato di Cosenza,

Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati; Italy.

40 Physics Department, Southern Methodist University, Dallas TX; United States of America.
41 Physics Department, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson TX; United States of America.
42 National Centre for Scientific Research "Demokritos", Agia Paraskevi; Greece.
43 (𝑎) Department of Physics, Stockholm University; (𝑏) Oskar Klein Centre, Stockholm; Sweden.
44 Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Hamburg and Zeuthen; Germany.
45 Lehrstuhl für Experimentelle Physik IV, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund; Germany.
46 Institut für Kern- und Teilchenphysik, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden; Germany.
47 Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham NC; United States of America.
48 SUPA - School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh; United Kingdom.
49 INFN e Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati; Italy.
50 Physikalisches Institut, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg; Germany.
51 II. Physikalisches Institut, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen; Germany.
52 Département de Physique Nucléaire et Corpusculaire, Université de Genève, Genève; Switzerland.
53 (𝑎) Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Genova, Genova; (𝑏) INFN Sezione di Genova; Italy.
54 II. Physikalisches Institut, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen, Giessen; Germany.
55 SUPA - School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow; United Kingdom.
56 LPSC, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS/IN2P3, Grenoble INP, Grenoble; France.
57 Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology, Harvard University, Cambridge MA; United States of

America.
58 (𝑎) Department of Modern Physics and State Key Laboratory of Particle Detection and Electronics,

University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei; (𝑏) Institute of Frontier and Interdisciplinary Science
and Key Laboratory of Particle Physics and Particle Irradiation (MOE), Shandong University,
Qingdao; (𝑐) School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Key Laboratory for Particle
Astrophysics and Cosmology (MOE), SKLPPC, Shanghai; (𝑑) Tsung-Dao Lee Institute, Shanghai; China.
59 (𝑎) Kirchhoff-Institut für Physik, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg; (𝑏) Physikalisches

Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg; Germany.

60 (𝑎) Department of Physics, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong; (𝑏) Department

of Physics, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; (𝑐) Department of Physics and Institute for Advanced
Study, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong; China.
61 Department of Physics, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu; Taiwan.
62 IJCLab, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, 91405, Orsay; France.
63 Department of Physics, Indiana University, Bloomington IN; United States of America.
64 (𝑎) INFN Gruppo Collegato di Udine, Sezione di Trieste, Udine; (𝑏) ICTP, Trieste; (𝑐) Dipartimento

Politecnico di Ingegneria e Architettura, Università di Udine, Udine; Italy.

45
65 (𝑎) INFN Sezione di Lecce; (𝑏) Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Università del Salento, Lecce; Italy.
66 (𝑎) INFN Sezione di Milano; (𝑏) Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Milano, Milano; Italy.
67 (𝑎) INFN Sezione di Napoli; (𝑏) Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Napoli, Napoli; Italy.
68 (𝑎) INFN Sezione di Pavia; (𝑏) Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pavia, Pavia; Italy.
69 (𝑎) INFN Sezione di Pisa; (𝑏) Dipartimento di Fisica E. Fermi, Università di Pisa, Pisa; Italy.
70 (𝑎) INFN Sezione di Roma; (𝑏) Dipartimento di Fisica, Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma; Italy.
71 (𝑎) INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata; (𝑏) Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Roma Tor Vergata,

Roma; Italy.
72 (𝑎) INFN Sezione di Roma Tre; (𝑏) Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Università Roma Tre, Roma;

Italy.
73 (𝑎) INFN-TIFPA; (𝑏) Università degli Studi di Trento, Trento; Italy.
74 Institut für Astro- und Teilchenphysik, Leopold-Franzens-Universität, Innsbruck; Austria.
75 University of Iowa, Iowa City IA; United States of America.
76 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames IA; United States of America.
77 Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna; Russia.
78 (𝑎) Departamento de Engenharia Elétrica, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Juiz de

Fora; (𝑏) Universidade Federal do Rio De Janeiro COPPE/EE/IF, Rio de Janeiro; (𝑐) Instituto de Física,
Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo; Brazil.
79 KEK, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization, Tsukuba; Japan.
80 Graduate School of Science, Kobe University, Kobe; Japan.
81 (𝑎) AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science,

Krakow; (𝑏) Marian Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University, Krakow; Poland.
82 Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow; Poland.
83 Faculty of Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto; Japan.
84 Kyoto University of Education, Kyoto; Japan.
85 Research Center for Advanced Particle Physics and Department of Physics, Kyushu University, Fukuoka ;

Japan.
86 Instituto de Física La Plata, Universidad Nacional de La Plata and CONICET, La Plata; Argentina.
87 Physics Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster; United Kingdom.
88 Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool; United Kingdom.
89 Department of Experimental Particle Physics, Jožef Stefan Institute and Department of Physics,

University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana; Slovenia.

90 School of Physics and Astronomy, Queen Mary University of London, London; United Kingdom.
91 Department of Physics, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham; United Kingdom.
92 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, London; United Kingdom.
93 Louisiana Tech University, Ruston LA; United States of America.
94 Fysiska institutionen, Lunds universitet, Lund; Sweden.
95 Departamento de Física Teorica C-15 and CIAFF, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid; Spain.
96 Institut für Physik, Universität Mainz, Mainz; Germany.
97 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester; United Kingdom.
98 CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille; France.
99 Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA; United States of America.
100 Department of Physics, McGill University, Montreal QC; Canada.
101 School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Victoria; Australia.
102 Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI; United States of America.
103 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing MI; United States of

America.

46
104 B.I. Stepanov Institute of Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk; Belarus.
105 Research Institute for Nuclear Problems of Byelorussian State University, Minsk; Belarus.
106 Group of Particle Physics, University of Montreal, Montreal QC; Canada.
107 P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; Russia.
108 National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow; Russia.
109 D.V. Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow;

Russia.
110 Fakultät für Physik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München; Germany.
111 Max-Planck-Institut für Physik (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut), München; Germany.
112 Graduate School of Science and Kobayashi-Maskawa Institute, Nagoya University, Nagoya; Japan.
113 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque NM; United States of

America.
114 Institute for Mathematics, Astrophysics and Particle Physics, Radboud University/Nikhef, Nijmegen;

Netherlands.
115 Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam;

Netherlands.
116 Department of Physics, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb IL; United States of America.
117 (𝑎) Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics and NSU, SB RAS, Novosibirsk; (𝑏) Novosibirsk State University

Novosibirsk; Russia.
118 Institute for High Energy Physics of the National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute, Protvino; Russia.
119 Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics named by A.I. Alikhanov of National Research

Centre "Kurchatov Institute", Moscow; Russia.

120 (𝑎) New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi; (𝑏) United Arab Emirates University, Al

Ain; (𝑐) University of Sharjah, Sharjah; United Arab Emirates.

121 Department of Physics, New York University, New York NY; United States of America.
122 Ochanomizu University, Otsuka, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo; Japan.
123 Ohio State University, Columbus OH; United States of America.
124 Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Oklahoma, Norman OK; United

States of America.
125 Department of Physics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater OK; United States of America.
126 Palacký University, Joint Laboratory of Optics, Olomouc; Czech Republic.
127 Institute for Fundamental Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR; United States of America.
128 Graduate School of Science, Osaka University, Osaka; Japan.
129 Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo; Norway.
130 Department of Physics, Oxford University, Oxford; United Kingdom.
131 LPNHE, Sorbonne Université, Université de Paris, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris; France.
132 Department of Physics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA; United States of America.
133 Konstantinov Nuclear Physics Institute of National Research Centre "Kurchatov Institute", PNPI, St.

Petersburg; Russia.
134 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA; United States of

America.
135 (𝑎) Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas - LIP, Lisboa; (𝑏) Departamento de

Física, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa; (𝑐) Departamento de Física, Universidade
de Coimbra, Coimbra; (𝑑) Centro de Física Nuclear da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa; (𝑒) Departamento de
Física, Universidade do Minho, Braga; ( 𝑓 ) Departamento de Física Teórica y del Cosmos, Universidad de
Granada, Granada (Spain); (𝑔) Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa; Portugal.
136 Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague; Czech Republic.

47
137 Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague; Czech Republic.
138 Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Prague; Czech Republic.
139 Particle Physics Department, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot; United Kingdom.
140 IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette; France.
141 Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz CA; United

States of America.
142 (𝑎) Departamento de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago; (𝑏) Universidad de la

Serena, La Serena; (𝑐) Universidad Andres Bello, Department of Physics, Santiago; (𝑑) Instituto de Alta
Investigación, Universidad de Tarapacá, Arica; (𝑒) Departamento de Física, Universidad Técnica Federico
Santa María, Valparaíso; Chile.
143 Universidade Federal de São João del Rei (UFSJ), São João del Rei; Brazil.
144 Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle WA; United States of America.
145 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield; United Kingdom.
146 Department of Physics, Shinshu University, Nagano; Japan.
147 Department Physik, Universität Siegen, Siegen; Germany.
148 Department of Physics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC; Canada.
149 SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford CA; United States of America.
150 Department of Physics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm; Sweden.
151 Departments of Physics and Astronomy, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook NY; United States of

America.
152 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sussex, Brighton; United Kingdom.
153 School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney; Australia.
154 Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei; Taiwan.
155 (𝑎) E. Andronikashvili Institute of Physics, Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi; (𝑏) High

Energy Physics Institute, Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi; Georgia.

156 Department of Physics, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa; Israel.
157 Raymond and Beverly Sackler School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv; Israel.
158 Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki; Greece.
159 International Center for Elementary Particle Physics and Department of Physics, University of Tokyo,

Tokyo; Japan.
160 Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo; Japan.
161 Tomsk State University, Tomsk; Russia.
162 Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto ON; Canada.
163 (𝑎) TRIUMF, Vancouver BC; (𝑏) Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Toronto ON;

Canada.
164 Division of Physics and Tomonaga Center for the History of the Universe, Faculty of Pure and Applied

Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba; Japan.

165 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Tufts University, Medford MA; United States of America.
166 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California Irvine, Irvine CA; United States of

America.
167 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Uppsala, Uppsala; Sweden.
168 Department of Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana IL; United States of America.
169 Instituto de Física Corpuscular (IFIC), Centro Mixto Universidad de Valencia - CSIC, Valencia; Spain.
170 Department of Physics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC; Canada.
171 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria BC; Canada.
172 Fakultät für Physik und Astronomie, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Würzburg; Germany.
173 Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry; United Kingdom.

48
174 Waseda University, Tokyo; Japan.
175 Department of Particle Physics and Astrophysics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot; Israel.
176 Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison WI; United States of America.
177 Fakultät für Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften, Fachgruppe Physik, Bergische Universität

Wuppertal, Wuppertal; Germany.

178 Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven CT; United States of America.
𝑎 Also at Borough of Manhattan Community College, City University of New York, New York NY; United

States of America.
𝑏 Also at Bruno Kessler Foundation, Trento; Italy.
𝑐 Also at Center for High Energy Physics, Peking University; China.
𝑑 Also at Centro Studi e Ricerche Enrico Fermi; Italy.
𝑒 Also at CERN, Geneva; Switzerland.
𝑓 Also at Département de Physique Nucléaire et Corpusculaire, Université de Genève, Genève;

Switzerland.
𝑔 Also at Departament de Fisica de la Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona; Spain.
ℎ Also at Department of Financial and Management Engineering, University of the Aegean, Chios; Greece.
𝑖 Also at Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing MI; United

States of America.
𝑗 Also at Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; United States of

America.
𝑘 Also at Department of Physics, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva; Israel.
𝑙 Also at Department of Physics, California State University, East Bay; United States of America.
𝑚 Also at Department of Physics, California State University, Fresno; United States of America.
𝑛 Also at Department of Physics, California State University, Sacramento; United States of America.
𝑜 Also at Department of Physics, King’s College London, London; United Kingdom.
𝑝 Also at Department of Physics, St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg; Russia.
𝑞 Also at Department of Physics, University of Fribourg, Fribourg; Switzerland.
𝑟 Also at Faculty of Physics, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow; Russia.
𝑠 Also at Faculty of Physics, Sofia University, ’St. Kliment Ohridski’, Sofia; Bulgaria.
𝑡 Also at Graduate School of Science, Osaka University, Osaka; Japan.
𝑢 Also at Hellenic Open University, Patras; Greece.
𝑣 Also at Institucio Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avancats, ICREA, Barcelona; Spain.
𝑤 Also at Institut für Experimentalphysik, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg; Germany.
𝑥 Also at Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest;

Hungary.
𝑦 Also at Institute of Particle Physics (IPP); Canada.
𝑧 Also at Institute of Physics, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, Baku; Azerbaijan.
𝑎𝑎 Also at Institute of Theoretical Physics, Ilia State University, Tbilisi; Georgia.
𝑎𝑏 Also at Instituto de Fisica Teorica, IFT-UAM/CSIC, Madrid; Spain.
𝑎𝑐 Also at Istanbul University, Dept. of Physics, Istanbul; Turkey.
𝑎𝑑 Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna; Russia.
𝑎𝑒 Also at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology State University, Dolgoprudny; Russia.
𝑎 𝑓 Also at National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow; Russia.
𝑎𝑔 Also at Physikalisches Institut, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg; Germany.
𝑎ℎ Also at The City College of New York, New York NY; United States of America.
𝑎𝑖 Also at TRIUMF, Vancouver BC; Canada.
𝑎 𝑗 Also at Universita di Napoli Parthenope, Napoli; Italy.

49
𝑎𝑘 Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (UCAS), Beijing; China.
𝑎𝑙 Also at Yeditepe University, Physics Department, Istanbul; Turkey.
∗ Deceased

50